Tag: Vicarious Liability

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Trustees Can Be Sued for Dishonored Cheques, Even If Trust Is Not Named as Accused

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a Trust is not a juristic person capable of being sued. A complaint for a dishonored cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is maintainable against the Trustee who signed it, without needing to array the Trust itself as an accused. The ruling clarifies that vicarious liability attaches directly to the responsible Trustee. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a financial arrangement concerning William Carey University. Facing a crisis, its sponsoring body, ACTS Group, entered an MoU with Orion Education Trust on 12.10.2017 to hand over the university's management. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Agarwal, was Orion's Chairman. In this capacity, he authorized the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, to liaise wit...
Read More
Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery

The Supreme Court held that merely proving a driver’s licence is fake does not absolve the insurer unless it is established that the vehicle owner knowingly breached the duty of due diligence in employing the driver. Absent proof of such breach, the insurer remains liable to third parties and cannot recover from the owner under a “pay and recover” order. Facts Of The Case: The accident occurred on January 26, 1993, at 2:00 AM at an intersection, involving a collision between a truck and a Matador van. The Matador van was carrying ten passengers, including the driver. Tragically, nine persons lost their lives in the accident, while two sustained injuries. Claims were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased passengers, as wel...
Read More
The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that mere presence in a crowd does not automatically constitute membership in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC. To establish constructive liability, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that each accused shared the common object of the assembly, distinguishing active participants from passive bystanders. Conviction requires cogent and consistent evidence linking the individual to the assembly's objective. Facts Of The Case: On 20 November 1988, at around 8:00 AM, informant Jagdish Mahato (PW-20) and his brother Meghu Mahato went to inspect their settled agricultural land in Baharkhal, Bihar. They allegedly found a large mob of 400-500 persons from the neighboring village of Mahila, many armed with weapons like guns, spears, ...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against the bank officials. It held that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, there is no concept of vicarious liability. Prosecuting officers without arraigning the company as an accused and without specific allegations of their culpable role is impermissible and an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a loan default by Phoenix India, which had secured credit facilities from the Bank of Baroda. After the firm's account was classified as a non-performing asset, the Bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act. A critical error occurred when the Bank issued a symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, which inadvertently quoted the outstanding dues as approximately Rs. 56.15 cro...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...
Read More