---
title: "Fixing Director’s Liability Under the NI Act: The Role of Substantial Averments in the HDFC Bank Case"
date: 2025-05-23
author: "Shrishail Kittad"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/banking-and-finance/vicarious-liability-ni-act-sc-hdfc-bank/
---

# Fixing Director’s Liability Under the NI Act: The Role of Substantial Averments in the HDFC Bank Case

Posted On - 23 May, 2025 •

By - [Shrishail Kittad](https://www.indialaw.in/people/adv-shrishail-kittad/ "Posts by Shrishail Kittad") and [Rahul Sundaram](https://www.indialaw.in/people/rahul-sundaram/ "Posts by Rahul Sundaram")

[![person holding white and red card](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/utwypb8_fu8-1.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/utwypb8_fu8-1.jpg)

In a significant ruling delivered on May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The case, HDFC Bank Limited versus the State of Maharashtra and another respondent, saw the apex court scrutinize the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings against Mrs. Ranjana Sharma, a director of a company that defaulted on its loan obligations to HDFC Bank. This article delves into the intricacies of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the Supreme Court’s comprehensive analysis leading to its landmark decision.

## **Background of the Case**

The case revolves around M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd., a company with the following directors: Mrs. Ranjana Sharma, her daughter Ms. Rachana Sharma, and Mr. Rakesh Rajpal. The company approached HDFC Bank for a credit facility in the form of a Revolving Loan Facility to meet its working capital requirements. The bank granted the facility, which was subsequently enhanced multiple times. However, the company failed to repay the outstanding dues, leading to its account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on March 27, 2018. A cheque issued by the company for Rs. 6,02,04,217 was dishonoured due to an “account blocked” reason. Despite legal notices, the company and its directors failed to respond, prompting HDFC Bank to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

## **The Bombay High Court’s Decision**

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated January 10, 2024, quashed the criminal proceedings against Mrs. Ranjana Sharma. The High Court held that the complaint filed by HDFC Bank did not contain sufficient averments to invoke vicarious liability against her under Section 141 of the NI Act. The court emphasized that the specific words “was in charge of” and “was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company” were not used in the complaint, which are essential to establish liability under the section.

## **Rival Contentions**

HDFC Bank contended that the averments in the complaint, when read with the supporting documents, clearly established that Mrs. Ranjana Sharma was in charge of and responsible for the company’s business. The bank relied on several judgments, including S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 89, arguing that the substance of the allegations, rather than the exact wording, should be considered. On the other hand, Mrs. Ranjana Sharma’s counsel argued that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act. They emphasized that the exact wording of the section must be used in the complaint and that merely being a director does not establish liability. They cited judgments like Siby Thomas vs. Somany Ceramics Limited, (2024) 1 SCC 348, to support their argument.

## **Supreme Court’s Analysis**

he Supreme Court  analysed the averments in the complaint and found that they were sufficient to establish that Mrs. Ranjana Sharma was responsible for the day-to-day affairs, management, and working of the company. The Court held that the substance of the allegations, rather than the exact wording, should be considered. The Court emphasized that the complainant is not required to plead administrative matters that are within the special knowledge of the company or its directors. The Court concluded that the averments in the complaint fulfilled the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act.

## **Legal Provisions and Judgments Relied Upon**

The Supreme Court relied on several key legal provisions and judgments in its analysis. Section 141 of the NI Act imposes vicarious liability on persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time the offence was committed. The Court cited judgments such as S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 89, which clarified that the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business. The Court also referred to Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 15, which held that the complaint need not reproduce the language of Section 141 verbatim if the substance of the allegations fulfills the requirements.

## **Conclusion**

The Supreme Court’s decision in HDFC Bank Limited versus the State of Maharashtra and another respondent is a significant ruling that clarifies the scope and application of Section 141 of the NI Act. The Court’s emphasis on the substance of the allegations over the exact wording provides much-needed clarity on the issue of vicarious liability. By allowing the appeal and setting aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that **directors and persons in charge of companies** are held accountable for their actions. This judgment serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving similar issues and highlights the apex court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and accountability.

**Case Citation**

HDFC Bank Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2025 INSC 759 (May 22, 2025).

**For further details write to**[**contact@infialaw.in**](mailto:contact@infialaw.in)

[Banking & Finance](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/banking-and-finance/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---