J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Factual Background:

1. M/s Rainbow Papers Limited (company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956), of which Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka, the Appellant before us, was the Promoter and Managing Director, sought loans from a public financial institution, Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited, the Respondent before us, to fulfil its various corporate requirements. The proposal of the company was considered by the Respondent and approval was granted for a Term Loan of Rs. 30.00 crores. In pursuance to the approval, a Loan Agreement was executed on 27.03.2012 in New Delhi.
2. In order to satisfy its obligations under the Agreement, the Accused company issued post-dated cheque of Rs. 25,47,945/- bearing cheque number 090656 dated 15.02.2016, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kalupur Circle Branch, Railway Pura, Ahmedabad, towards the payment of one of the instalments. On the cheque being presented to the bankers of the Respondent i.e., HDFC Bank Limited, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi, the cheque was returned vide Memo dated 07.04.2016 for the reason “Account Closed”.
3. On 19.04.2016, a demand-cum-legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’) was issued on behalf of the Respondent calling upon the company as Accused no.1 and the Appellant herein as Accused no. 2 to settle the debt advanced by way of corporate loan dated 27.03.2012. The Accused acknowledged their liability to pay the loan amount vide reply dated 28.04.2016. The amount was not paid and, thus, on 16.05.2016, Criminal Complaint No. 632982/2016 was filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi, under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 138¹, Section 141 ²and Section 142³ of the NI Act. The complaint was signed and verified by Mr. N. Ramachandran, Deputy General Manager (Law) of the Respondent company. An endeavor for mediation was made but was not successful and, thus, the next date was scheduled before the Magistrate for 15.01.2018. In the meantime, a development, which took place, was that in 2017 M/s Neeraj Paper Agencies Limited, styling itself as ‘Operational Creditor’, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) read with Rule 6 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as ‘IB Rules, 2016’) with the request to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Accused company, treating it as the 'Corporate Debtor'. The National Company Law Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2017 admitted the aforesaid insolvency application.

¹Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.

²Offences by companies.

³Cognizance of offences.

4. The Respondent herein filed its claim qua the debt, which was the subject matter of the N.I. Act proceedings, on 13.10.2017. In terms of the Resolution Plan dated 26.05.2018, the Resolution Applicant (Kushal Limited) filed the Resolution Plan and during the course of meeting the Committee of Creditors on 05.06.2018, it was informed that the respondent herein could not be considered as a Secured Financial Creditor as per definitions contained in Section 3(30) and Section 3(31) of the IBC. In effect, on legal advice, the Respondent was opined as an Unsecured Financial Creditor. This resulted in the Respondent filing applications, in the form of objections, before the NCLAT where the status was sought to be changed from the Unsecured to Secured Financial Creditor.
5. Now turning back to the NIA proceedings, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed an interim order dated 12.11.2018 dismissing the application of the Appellant for exemption from personal appearance. This, in turn, was predicated on the observations of NCLAT in Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs P. Mohan Raj &Ors, Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.306 of 2018, opining that Section 138 of NI Act is a penal provision, which empowers the court of competent jurisdiction to pass order of imprisonment or fine, which cannot be held to be proceedings or any judgment or decree of money claim. Thus, it would not come within the purview of Section 14 of the IBC and, thus, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 could continue simultaneously.
6. The Appellant, thus, filed an application for discharge of the Complaint Case in question herein in the present case, which was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 01.11.2019. The Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the Appellant bearing Criminal Revision Petition No. 784 of 2019 also met with a similar fate before the High Court and was dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. It is this order, which is now, sought to be assailed before us.

Appellant’s submissions:

7. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel, sought to urge on behalf of the appellant that the trigger of Section 138 of the NI Act, is the non-payment of legally enforceable debt. Once the debt is itself extinguished, either under Section 31 or in process from Sections 38 to 41 and 54 of IBC, the basis of Section 138 of the NI Act disappears. We may note that these provisions fall under Chapter III⁴ of the IBC.

⁴Liquidation Process

8. The term ‘Debt’ would mean ‘legally enforceable debt’ under the Explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act and this may be read with Sections 2(6) and 2(8) of the IBC.
9. It was submitted that the nature of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is primarily compensatory in nature and the punitive element is incorporated at enforcing the compensatory provisions. Therefore, once recovery is made partly by the receipt of money and partly by waiver, Section 138 of the NI Act should not be permitted to be continued.
10. It was lastly urged that if the debt of the company is resolved then the payment would be governed under the Resolution Plan. If the debts are not resolved, then the assets of the company are to be distributed in terms of Section 53 of the IBC.

Plea of the Respondent:

11. On behalf of the Respondent, it was urged that the cheque was given for repayment of the aforementioned loan amount of Rs.30 crore for which the accused company agreed to repay the principal amount in two installments with first installment of Rs.10 crore payable on 31.03.2015 and the second installment of Rs.20 crore payable on 31.03.2016. The accused company had to pay interest @ 15 per cent per annum on the said principal amount of loan and such interest was payable monthly on the 15th day of every month, which was in consonance with the dates and the cheque amount.
12. It was urged that the accused company along with the Appellant deliberately and with the mala fide intention gave the cheque to defraud the Respondent to take loan from it and subsequently to usurp the loan amount and hence had closed the bank account. The Appellant being the signatory was directly liable along with the accused company. The Appellant was actively involved in the day to day affairs of the company as can be inferred from the aforementioned loan agreement signed by him as well.

Our View:

13. We may note that on 20.09.2022 with some of the SLPs being withdrawn, in respect of the SLPs in question, the interim order was made absolute with the direction for urgent listing as criminal proceedings had been stayed. Learned counsel for the parties stated that they will file short synopsis not running into more than three pages each and will not take more than 15-20 minutes each for their respective submissions. On the conspectus of the aforesaid we heard the arguments on 17.01.2023 when we granted leave and reserved the judgment.
14. The Appellant had submitted the synopsis in advance. The Respondent however, despite assuring that they would submit the synopsis has not cared to do so and we have gone on the basis of the record. This position is prevalent right till 12.03.2023 and we do not consider it appropriate to wait any more. We assume that the Respondent 7 is not interested in rendering any further assistance to the Court by filing synopsis. Fortunately for them, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, they have not really suffered the consequences thereof.
15. The issue whether the respondent is a Secured Financial Creditor or an Unsecured Financial Creditor within the meaning of the said Code is not something we can deal with as that is the matter of the proceedings under the said Code or any appeal preferred therefrom. The only issue with which we are concerned with is whether during the pendency of the proceedings under the said Code which have been admitted, the present proceedings under the N.I. Act can continue simultaneously or not.
16. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts and quite different and would not intercede each other. In fact, a bare reading of Section 14 of the IBC would make it clear that the nature of proceedings which have to be kept in abeyance do not include criminal proceedings, which is the nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. We are unable to appreciate the plea of the learned counsel for the Appellant that because Section 138 of the N.I. Act proceedings arise from a default in financial debt, the proceedings under Section 138 should be taken as akin to civil proceedings rather than criminal proceedings. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not recovery proceedings. They are penal in character. A person may face imprisonment or fine or both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is not a recovery of the amount with interest as a debt recovery proceedings would be. They are not akin to suit proceedings.
17. It cannot be said that the process under the IBC whether under Section 31 or Sections 38 to 41 which can extinguish the debt would ipso facto apply to the extinguishment of the criminal proceedings. No doubt in terms of the Scheme under the IBC there are sacrifices to be made by parties to settle the debts, the company being liquidated or revitalized. The Appellant before us has been roped in as a signatory of the cheque as well as the Promoter and Managing Director of the Accused company, which availed of the loan. The loan agreement was also signed by him on behalf of the company. What the Appellant seeks is escape out of criminal liability having defaulted in payment of the amount at a very early stage of the loan. In fact, the loan account itself was closed. So much for the bona fides of the Appellant.
18. We are unable to accept the plea that if proceedings against the company come to an end then the Appellant as the Managing Director cannot be proceeded against. We are unable to accept the plea that Section 138 of the N.I. Act proceedings are primarily compensatory in nature and that the punitive element is incorporated only at enforcing the compensatory proceedings. The criminal liability and the fines are built on the principle of not honouring a negotiable instrument, which affects trade. This is apart from the principle of financial liability per se. To say that under a scheme which may be approved, a part amount will be recovered or if there is no scheme a person may stand in a queue to recover debt would absolve the consequences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is unacceptable.
19. We are, thus, conclusively of the view that the impugned order takes the correct view in law and cannot be assailed before us.

Conclusion:

20. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs before us on account of what we have recorded in para 14.