# In the matter of Rahul Sood vs. Government of NCT of Delhi

> HC judgment dated 2025-04-02. Citation: TCN-2025-HC-00028. The case involves multiple petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, seeking the…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 2 Apr 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-HC-00028
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/rahul-sood-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-f8887796

## Summary

### Background

The case involves multiple petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, seeking the quashing of Complaint Cases bearing Nos. 2161/1/15 to 2166/1/15 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The complainant, Pritam K. Jain, alleged that M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., through Rahul Sood (Accused No. 6), along with other accused persons, approached the complainant for the supply of rice. Cheques amounting to Rs. 7,55,00,000/- were issued by Anita Dang/Accused No. 2 on behalf of M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. but were dishonoured.

## Facts

Pritam K. Jain filed criminal complaints alleging that M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., represented by Rahul Sood and others, failed to honor payments for rice supplied. Anita Dang issued cheques totaling Rs. 7,55,00,000 on behalf of Amira Pure Foods, which were subsequently dishonored. Rahul Sood, an independent director, was summoned as an accused. He claimed he had no knowledge of the cheque issuance and was not involved in the company's day-to-day operations. The complainant argued that Rahul Sood was involved in the agreement for rice supply and RTGS payments were made with his sanction. The DIR-12 form indicated Rahul Sood remained a director until 30/09/2016. The key fact is whether Rahul Sood, as an independent director, can be held vicariously liable under

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether an independent director can be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that mere designation as a director is insufficient to establish liability.

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability

…

**Interpretation:** Section 141 of the NI Act creates vicarious liability for directors of a

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that Rahul Sood was an independent non-executive

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** NEENA BANSAL…
- **Appellants:** RAHUL…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Amira Pure…; Government of NCT…
- **Other parties:** Kohi…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-15 — Summoning…**: Ld. M.M. took cognizance and directed issuance of process against all the accused persons…
- **2025-02-07 — Reserved…**: Case reserved for…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 138 — Discharge order](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-138)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/rahul-sood-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-f8887796