The Supreme Court reiterated that officers of the company, including directors, cannot be held liable unless their personal involvement is demonstrated and supported by a specific statutory provision.
The case arose from an appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision to deny the quashing of an FIR filed against the appellants. The FIR alleged violations under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) related to the illegal uprooting of 256 trees in Gurugram by machinery, causing environmental damage. The appellants held managerial positions in Tata Realty and Infrastructure Limited and Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd.
The appellants argued that they were wrongly implicated as the complaint lacked allegations of their personal involvement in the act. They contended that vicarious liability could not be imposed without direct personal involvement supported by law.
The Supreme Court, setting aside the High Court's decision, clarified that mere association with a company does not automatically make its officials vicariously liable. The Court emphasized that for corporate liability to extend to an individual, specific allegations of personal involvement must be made, and there must be a statutory provision for vicarious liability. The Court also referred to previous precedents to underscore that directors cannot be held liable unless there is evidence of their direct involvement.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, finding that the complaint lacked the necessary specific allegations to establish their personal liability.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ง๐ถ๐๐น๐ฒ: ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ป๐ท๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐๐ & ๐ข๐ฟ๐. ๐๐. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ & ๐๐ป๐ฟ.
๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐ก๐ผ. ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฑ
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.