The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
Can a corporation be held liable for a debt incurred by an individual who had severed ties with the entity nearly two decades prior? This central question of agency and authority sits at the heart of Kanta Kapoor and Others v. Him Khadi Gramodyog and Another (2026)1. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, through Justice Rakesh Kainthla, answered with a definitive “no,” clarifying that the statutory protections of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act cannot be weaponized to enforce liabilities rooted in unauthorized or fraudulent transactions. The court’s ruling serves as a stark reminder that while Section 138 of the NI Act offers a streamlined path for debt recovery, it remains tethered to the fundamental requirement of a “legally enforceable debt” a requirement that collapses when the claimant relies on uninformed witnesses and phantom authority.
The factual matrix of this dispute traces back to an agreement for the purchase of land, specifically Plot No. 10 at DIC, Industrial Area Baddi. The complainants alleged that after the accused failed to deliver on the land deal, a cheque for ₹3,00,000 was issued to refund the consideration amount. When the cheque was returned with the remark “payment stopped by drawer,” a criminal complaint was initiated. However, the defense presented a narrative that fundamentally shifted the trial’s trajectory: they asserted that the entire transaction was a fraud orchestrated by Devender Mohan. Evidence revealed that Mohan had resigned from the accused company as early as 1996 years before the purported agreement, a fact substantiated by public notices in The Indian Express and Jansatta. By the time the cheque was issued, Mohan was a legal stranger to the firm, possessing no authority to bind it to any financial obligation.
In dissecting the rationale behind the acquittal, the High Court focused heavily on the evidentiary vacuum created by the complainant’s choice of witness. The testimony of Puneet Kapoor (CW1), who appeared as a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, proved fatal to the case. While the precedent in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014)2 allows an SPA to file a complaint, it explicitly mandates that the holder must have personal knowledge of the transaction to depose as a witness. During cross-examination, CW1’s lack of familiarity with the specifics such as when the cheque was handed over or which documents were exchanged rendered his testimony insufficient. The Court noted that an SPA cannot simply act as a conduit for hearsay; without “specific assertions” based on personal knowledge, the complainant cannot bridge the gap between a dishonored instrument and a valid legal liability.
Furthermore, the judgment underscored the shifting burdens of proof inherent in Section 139 of the NI Act. While the law presumes a cheque is issued for a debt, this presumption is rebuttable. By proving Devender Mohan’s long-standing resignation, the accused successfully established a “probable defense.” The Court applied the rigorous standards for reversing an acquittal as laid down in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025)3 and P. Somaraju v. State of A.P. (2025)4, noting that an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court’s view is “patently perverse.” Since the trial court had reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence of unauthorized agency, there was no justification for the High Court to disturb the finding of innocence.
The culmination of this legal battle reinforces the principle that the “double presumption of innocence” which strengthens after a trial court acquittal is a formidable barrier for any appellant. The failure of the complainant to produce a witness with firsthand knowledge, coupled with the proven lack of authority of the signatory’s associate, meant the debt was never legally enforceable against the company. Ultimately, the ruling in Kanta Kapoor acts as a cautionary tale for litigants: in the complex landscape of the NI Act, the technicality of a dishonored cheque will never supersede the substantive necessity of proving a legitimate, authorized, and personally verified transaction.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the complainant failed to overcome the “double presumption of innocence” that follows an acquittal by a trial court. The ruling highlights that while Section 139 of the NI Act provides a presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque, this presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the accused successfully rebutted that presumption by proving that the individual who entered into the agreement, Devender Mohan, had no authority to bind the company as he had resigned years prior. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the “Silent Operator” in legal proceedings, the Special Power of Attorney (SPA). By relying on a witness who lacked personal knowledge of the transaction, the complainant was unable to provide the necessary “specific assertions” required by the precedent in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla
