Why the liability of Directors in a SICK Company is Unavoidable?

Navigating the complexities surrounding the liability of directors in a SICK company or understanding the true impact of a BIFR restraint order on a cheque bounce case can be challenging. If you have specific questions about how the proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK company might affect you, seeking professional guidance is a prudent step.

To help you understand your situation better, you can schedule a session to discuss the matter in detail.

Schedule a discussion.

To help you navigate through the article easily, we have created a table of contents. Below are the key topics we will cover in our detailed analysis of this significant judgment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1                  Judgment Snapshot: Unpacking the Liability of directors in a SICK company

The question of the liability of directors in a SICK company, especially in cases of cheque dishonour, is a critical legal issue that affects countless businesses. It brings into conflict the rights of a creditor holding a bounced cheque and the protections afforded to a financially distressed company. A recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India provides crucial clarity on this matter, particularly on the impact of a BIFR restraint order on a cheque bounce case. This analysis unpacks that very judgment to explain why the liability of directors in a SICK company cannot be easily avoided. Below are the bibliographic details of this landmark judgment.

·      Title of the Judgment: Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. L.D. Industries Ltd. & Ors.

·      Name of the Hon’ble Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

·      Citation Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3821 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1550/2024); 2025 INSC 1064

·      Date of the Judgment: September 02, 2025

If you have specific questions about how the proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK company might affect you, seeking professional guidance is a prudent step.

To help you understand your situation better, you can schedule a session to discuss the matter in detail.

Schedule a discussion

2                  Background: The Dispute Testing the Liability of Company Directors

This case originates from a straightforward commercial transaction that evolved into a significant legal question about the liability of company directors. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the declaration of a company as ‘SICK’ could absolve its directors from criminal proceedings for issuing cheques that were later dishonoured.

2.1            The Complainant’s Claim: Enforcing Director’s Accountability for Unpaid Supplies

The complainant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., alleged that they had supplied goods to the accused company, L.D. Industries Ltd.. In return for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques as part-payment. When the complainant deposited these cheques, they were returned with the reason "insufficient funds". Following the dishonour, the complainant served a legal notice to the accused company and its directors, demanding payment of the cheque amounts. When the accused failed to make the payment despite the notice, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings, seeking to enforce director’s accountability for the dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.2            The Accused’s Defence: Negating the Directors’ Personal Liability with SICK Co. Status

In response, the accused company and its directors did not dispute the issuance of the cheques. Instead, their defence was built on negating the directors’ personal liability by highlighting the company’s financial status. They informed the Hon’ble Court that their company had been declared ‘SICK’ by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). More importantly, they argued that BIFR had imposed a "legal embargo" by restraining the company from disposing of any of its assets. Due to this restraint order, they claimed it was impossible for them to legally make the payment demanded in the notice, and therefore, the proceedings for cheque dishonour were not sustainable.

3                  Key Timelines: Tracking the Path to Director’s Culpability

The sequence of events is crucial to understanding how the legal arguments unfolded and eventually led to the final verdict on director’s culpability.

·      August 21, 2000: The BIFR passed a restraint order under Section 22A of SICA, directing the accused company not to dispose of its assets without BIFR’s consent.

·      April 2001: The cheques central to this dispute were issued by the accused company in favour of the complainant.

·      Post-April 2001: The said cheques were dishonoured upon presentation due to "insufficient funds".

·      Following Dishonour: The complainant served the mandatory legal notice demanding payment, which was not complied with by the accused.

·      Thereafter: The complainant filed multiple criminal complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the concerned Hon’ble Magistrate.

·      October 5, 2023: The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed its order, dismissing the complainant’s petitions and upholding the discharge of the accused directors.

·      September 02, 2025: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered the final judgment, setting aside the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and the Revisional Court.

4                  The Courtroom Journey: A Battle Over the Liability of Directors

The legal battle over the liability of directors traversed multiple levels of the judiciary, with conflicting outcomes at each stage, ultimately requiring the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s intervention to settle the law.

4.1            Magistrate’s Court: Summons Issued Against Directors

After the complaints were filed, the Hon’ble Magistrate examined the allegations and the supporting affidavit. Finding a prima facie case, the Hon’ble Magistrate issued summons, directing the accused company and its directors to appear and face trial.

4.2            Revisional Court’s Order: A Temporary Victory for the Accused

The accused directors, upon being summoned, filed an application before the Hon’ble Magistrate seeking a recall of the summons, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the accused approached the Hon’ble Court of Session by filing a revision petition. The Revisional Court sided with the accused. It allowed the revision, set aside the Hon’ble Magistrate’s order, and discharged the accused from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This was a significant, albeit temporary, victory for the accused directors.

4.3            Hon’ble High Court’s Decision: Upholding the Discharge of Directors

The complainant, now aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court, challenged it by filing writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. However, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the complainant’s petitions, thereby agreeing with the reasoning of the Revisional Court and upholding the discharge of the accused directors. This decision solidified the view, at that stage, that the BIFR proceedings provided a valid defence against prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

If you have specific questions about how the proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK company might affect you, seeking professional guidance is a prudent step.

To help you understand your situation better, you can schedule a session to discuss the matter in detail.

Schedule a discussion

5                  Core Legal Conflict Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The dismissal of the complainant’s petitions by the Hon’ble High Court set the stage for the final appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Here, the core legal arguments that had been debated in the lower courts were presented with finality, focusing on the unresolved conflict between the N.I. Act’s punitive measures and the protective shield of the SICA legislation.

5.1            Accused’s Stance: Can a BIFR Order Halt a Section 138 Case?

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the accused directors (respondents in the appeal) supported the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. Their primary contention was that once the company was declared ‘SICK’ and a BIFR restraint order was passed, the proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK company were liable to be quashed, and therefore, the Hon’ble High Court’s decision required no interference (Para 12). Their entire case rested on the premise that the BIFR order created an insurmountable legal barrier to making payment.

5.2            Complainant’s Stance: Why the Proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK Company Must Continue

The complainant (appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court) presented a multi-pronged argument challenging the Hon’ble High Court’s order. They contended that:

·      The lower courts failed to appreciate that the Power of the Magistrate to Recall summons in a NI complaint does not exist in law, making the accused’s initial application legally invalid (Para 10(i)).

·      The Hon’ble High Court had fundamentally misconstrued the precedent set in the M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. case, which does not create an absolute bar on criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour (Para 10(ii)).

·      The specific BIFR restraint order in this case was not absolute. It contained a crucial exception allowing the company to use its assets for "day-to-day operations," which is precisely what the dishonoured cheques were issued for (Para 10(ii)).

·      Since the cheques were issued in 2001, well after the BIFR order in 2000, it should be presumed they were for ongoing business operations. Whether this was true or not was a matter of fact to be decided by leading evidence at trial, not to be presumed at a preliminary stage to discharge the directors (Para 10(iii)).

6                  Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Landmark Rulings

After carefully considering the arguments from both sides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment that clarified several critical aspects of law concerning the liability of directors in a SICK company. The Hon’ble Court systematically dismantled the reasoning of the Hon’ble High Court and the Revisional Court.

6.1            Ruling 1: Decoding the impact of BIFR restraint order on a cheque bounce case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court first examined the specific BIFR order dated 21.08.2000. The order stated:

"The company/promoters were directed u/s. 22-A of the Act not to dispose of any fixed or current assets of the company without the consent of the BIFR. In case the company was running, the current assets could be drawn to the extent required for day-to-day operations, proper account of which should be maintained." (Para 16).

The Hon’ble Court observed that this wording was clear and unambiguous. It did not create a complete embargo on the use of company assets. Instead, it explicitly permitted the company to draw upon its current assets for its "day-to-day operations" (Para 17). Since the complainant’s case was that the cheques were issued against supplies for such operations, the Hon’ble Court held that this question could only be decided after trial and evidence, not at the threshold (Para 18).

6.2            Ruling 2: Clarifying the Power of the Magistrate to Recall summons in a NI complaint.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the procedural error in the case head-on. It unequivocally stated that the initial application filed by the accused before the Hon’ble Magistrate to recall the summons was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Court relied on its previous binding decisions, including the Constitution Bench judgment In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, and reiterated the settled legal principle (Para 24). It affirmed:

"…we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons." (Para 24, Footnote 12).

This finding meant that the entire process initiated by the accused to get the summons recalled was flawed from the very beginning, and the Revisional Court had erred in entertaining it.

6.3            Ruling 3: The Correct Interpretation of the Kusum Ingots Precedent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the lower courts had wrongly relied on the Kusum Ingots judgment to discharge the accused. The Hon’ble Court clarified that Kusum Ingots does not lay down a blanket rule that Section 138 proceedings cannot continue against a SICK company. Instead, it holds that the effect of a BIFR restraint order must be examined based on the facts and circumstances of each specific case (Para 20). The Hon’ble Court summarized the key principles from its past decisions, stating that "(a) there is no embargo on filing a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against a ‘SICK’ company; [and] (b) even if there is a restraint order under Section 22A of SICA, the nature of the restraint order and the facts of that case would have to be considered…" (Para 22).

6.4            Ruling 4: The Final Verdict on the Liability of directors in a SICK company.

Based on the above rulings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the Revisional Court and the Hon’ble High Court had committed a grave error by discharging the accused at a preliminary stage (Para 23). The defence raised by the directors was a mixed question of law and fact that could only be adjudicated upon after both parties had presented their evidence during a trial. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the complainant’s appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the Hon’ble High Court and the Revisional Court, and restored the original complaints on the file of the learned Magistrate to be decided in accordance with the law (Para 25, 239, 240).

7                  Conclusion: Key Takeaways

This judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court provides invaluable guidance and serves as a crucial reminder of the legal responsibilities that accompany corporate directorships, even in times of financial distress.

7.1            Insights for Complainants (Cheque Holders)

For those holding a dishonoured cheque from a company, this judgment is a reassurance. It clarifies that the mere status of a company being ‘SICK’ or under BIFR is not a shield against criminal liability for cheque dishonour. Complainants have the right to proceed with their case and prove through evidence that the transaction was part of the company’s regular operations, thus making the directors liable for the dishonour.

7.2            Insights for Directors of Financially Stressed Companies

Directors of companies facing financial hardship must take careful note. The judgment underscores that the liability of directors in a SICK company is real and cannot be wished away. Issuing cheques with the knowledge of a BIFR restraint order is a significant risk, as the defence that the order prevented payment is not absolute and will be tested in court. Directors cannot expect a case to be dismissed at the summoning stage on these grounds; they must be prepared to face a full trial and substantiate their defence with evidence.

8                  Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the final verdict on the liability of directors in a SICK company if a cheque bounces?

A: The final verdict, as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that the liability of directors in a SICK company is real and unavoidable. The defence of the company being ‘SICK’ is not absolute and must be proven with evidence during a full trial, not at a preliminary stage.

Q: Can proceedings of Section 138 NI Act against a SICK company be stopped just because the company is ‘SICK’?

A: No. The Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that there is no embargo on filing a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against a ‘SICK’ company. The proceedings cannot be stopped automatically based on the company’s ‘SICK’ status alone.

Q: What is the actual impact of a BIFR restraint order on a cheque bounce case?

A: The impact depends entirely on the specific wording of the restraint order and the facts of the case. If the order has exceptions, such as allowing payments for "day-to-day operations," it may not serve as a valid defence, and the matter will be decided at trial.

Q: Does a Magistrate have the power to recall summons in a NI complaint once it is issued?

A: No. The Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally reiterated the legal principle that Trial Courts have no inherent power to review or recall an order issuing a summons in a cheque bounce case.

Q: I am a director of a SICK company. Can I get a cheque bounce case dismissed at the beginning?

A: Based on this judgment, you cannot expect the case to be dismissed at the summoning stage on the grounds that your company is ‘SICK’. You will likely have to face a full trial to present your defence and evidence.

Q: The company that gave me a bounced cheque is now under BIFR. Is my case invalid?

A: No, your case is not automatically invalid. This judgment reassures complainants that a company’s ‘SICK’ status or a BIFR order does not act as a complete shield against liability for cheque dishonour.

Q: What was the BIFR restraint order’s specific exception in this case?

A: The specific order allowed the company to draw from its current assets to the extent required for "day-to-day operations," provided proper accounts were maintained. This exception was a critical factor in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision.

Q: How did the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarify the Kusum Ingots judgment?

A: The Hon’ble Court clarified that the Kusum Ingots judgment does not create a blanket rule to stop proceedings. It holds that whether a BIFR order affects a Section 138 case depends on the specific facts and circumstances, which must be examined by the court.

Q: Our company was not allowed to sell assets due to a BIFR order. Isn’t this a valid defence for not paying the cheque amount?

A: This may not be a complete defence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that if the BIFR order allows for payments for ongoing business operations, the defence might not be accepted, especially without a full trial to examine the facts.

Q: The cheque I received was issued after the company was under a BIFR order. Is this significant?

A: Yes, the article highlights that the cheques being issued after the BIFR order was in place was a key fact. It supported the complainant’s argument that the transaction was for ongoing business and the liability could not be ignored. Of course. Here are more questions and answers based on the key issues you provided.

Q: Can a company use its ‘SICK’ status as a blanket defense in a cheque bounce case?

A: No, a company cannot use its status as a ‘SICK’ company as a blanket defense to automatically escape liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment makes it clear that this is not an absolute shield, and the case must be examined on its own facts and merits.

Q: Does a BIFR restraint order automatically stop a cheque dishonour case?

A: No, a BIFR restraint order under Section 22A of SICA does not automatically stop proceedings. Its legal effect depends on the specific terms of the order. If the order allows for exceptions, like payments for "day-to-day operations," the criminal case for cheque dishonour can continue.

Q: Can a director successfully argue that a BIFR order made it legally impossible to pay the cheque amount?

A: It’s unlikely that this argument would succeed in getting the case dismissed at an early stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court established that whether the BIFR order truly made payment impossible is a question of fact that must be proven with evidence during a full trial, not decided at the outset.

Q: From an accused director’s perspective, how should the Kusum Ingots judgment be interpreted?

A: The Kusum Ingots judgment should not be interpreted as a guaranteed escape from prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that it does not provide a complete bar on Section 138 proceedings. It only establishes that the court must consider the specific facts and the nature of the BIFR order before deciding if the case can proceed.

Q: Do I have the right to file a Section 138 case against a company after it has been declared ‘SICK’?

A: Yes, you absolutely have the right. The judgment confirms there is no legal embargo on filing or pursuing a cheque dishonour case against a company just because it has been declared ‘SICK’ under SICA.

Q: How can I argue that a BIFR order allowing payments for "day-to-day operations" helps my case?

A: You can argue that the cheque you received was for the supply of goods or services essential for the company’s daily business. This would place the transaction squarely within the exception, meaning the BIFR order does not protect the directors from their liability to pay for those operations.

Q: What is the importance of the cheques being issued after the BIFR restraint order was in place?

A: This is highly significant. It can be used to show that the directors, despite being aware of the company’s financial distress and the restraint order, continued to conduct business and issue cheques. This can strengthen the argument that they had an obligation to ensure funds were available for such transactions, especially if they were for day-to-day operations.

Q: Can a Magistrate take back a summoning order in a cheque bounce case?

A: No. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle from the Adalat Prasad judgment, stating that a Magistrate’s court has no inherent power to review or recall its own order to issue a summons.

Q: What is the legal presumption about the date written on a cheque?

A: Under Section 118(b) of the N.I. Act, the law presumes that a cheque was made or drawn on the date that it bears. This is a rebuttable presumption, meaning the burden is on the accused to lead evidence during the trial to prove otherwise.

Q: Why can’t a cheque bounce case against a SICK company be dismissed at the very beginning?

A: The case can’t be dismissed at the threshold because the accused’s defense (being a ‘SICK’ company with a BIFR order) involves complex questions of fact. The principle of trial vs. threshold discharge means these facts, like whether the payment was for ‘day-to-day operations,’ must be decided based on evidence presented by both parties during a full trial.