{"id":13662,"date":"2025-12-31T06:06:20","date_gmt":"2025-12-31T06:06:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=13662"},"modified":"2025-12-31T06:09:58","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T06:09:58","slug":"independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Liability of Independent and Non-Executive Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases: A Shield of Governance Over Management"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction-independent-directors-ni-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In the architecture of modern corporate governance in India, independent and non-executive directors occupy a distinct and deliberately limited role. They are appointed not to run the company&#8217;s daily affairs, but to provide strategic guidance, ensure ethical compliance, protect stakeholder interests, and bring independent judgment to the boardroom. Their insulation from operational control is the very rationale of their appointment under the Companies Act, 2013, particularly Section 149(6) read with Schedule IV.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Statutory_Framework_Sections_138_and_141_of_the_NI_Act\" >Statutory Framework: Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Section_138_%E2%80%93_The_Substantive_Offence\" >Section 138 \u2013 The Substantive Offence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Section_141_%E2%80%93_Vicarious_Liability_of_Persons_in_Charge\" >Section 141 \u2013 Vicarious Liability of Persons in Charge<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Judicial_Principles_Governing_Director_Liability\" >Judicial Principles Governing Director Liability<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#1_Designation_Is_Irrelevant_Role_Is_Determinative\" >1. Designation Is Irrelevant; Role Is Determinative<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#National_Small_Industries_Corporation_Ltd_v_Harmeet_Singh_Paintal_2010_3_SCC_330\" >National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010) 3 SCC 330<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Maksud_Saiyed_v_State_of_Gujarat_2008_5_SCC_668\" >Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#2_Independent_and_Non-Executive_Directors_Stand_on_a_Different_Footing\" >2. Independent and Non-Executive Directors Stand on a Different Footing<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Pooja_Ravinder_Devidasani_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2014_16_SCC_1\" >Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Sharad_Kumar_Sanghi_v_Sangita_Rane_2015_14_SCC_75\" >Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 14 SCC 75<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Katta_Sujatha_v_Fertilizers_Chemicals_Tranvancore_Ltd_2002_3_SCC_511\" >Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers &amp; Chemicals (Tranvancore) Ltd., (2002) 3 SCC 511<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Anil_Hada_v_Indian_Acrylic_Ltd_1999_7_SCC_226\" >Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 226<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#3_Cheque_Signatory_Principle\" >3. Cheque Signatory Principle<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#SMS_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_v_Neeta_Bhalla_2005_8_SCC_89\" >S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#NK_Wahi_v_Shekhar_Singh_1977_4_SCC_16\" >N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 16<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Saroj_Kumar_Poddar_v_State_NCT_of_Delhi_2007_8_SCC_539\" >Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2007) 8 SCC 539<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#4_Mechanical_Summoning_Is_Impermissible\" >4. Mechanical Summoning Is Impermissible<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Gunmala_Sales_Pvt_Ltd_v_Anu_Mehta_2014_11_SCC_103\" >Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Anu Mehta, (2014) 11 SCC 103<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Pepsi_Foods_Ltd_v_Special_Judicial_Magistrate_1998_5_SCC_749\" >Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#State_of_Karnataka_v_Pastor_P_Raju_2006_6_SCC_728\" >State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#5_Burden_on_the_Complainant_at_the_Threshold\" >5. Burden on the Complainant at the Threshold<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Aneeta_Hada_v_Godfather_Travels_Tours_Pvt_Ltd_2012_5_SCC_661\" >Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels &amp; Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Anita_Malhotra_v_Apparel_Export_Promotion_Council_2012_7_SCC_193\" >Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, (2012) 7 SCC 193<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Camlin_Ltd_v_Shivsagar_Vegetable_Products_2013_11_SCC_456\" >Camlin Ltd. v. Shivsagar Vegetable Products, (2013) 11 SCC 456<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Supreme_Court_Precedents_for_Comprehensive_Coverage\" >Supreme Court Precedents for Comprehensive Coverage<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#1_Sheoratan_Agarwal_v_State_of_MP_1984_4_SCC_352\" >1. Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P., (1984) 4 SCC 352<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#2_Bhagwandas_Chainani_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2002_7_SCC_549\" >2. Bhagwandas Chainani v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 549<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#3_Sharad_Kumar_Sanghi_v_Sangita_Rane_2015_14_SCC_75\" >3. Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 14 SCC 75<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#4_Basangouda_S_Patil_v_Shankaragouda_S_Patil_2021_11_SCC_285\" >4. Basangouda S. Patil v. Shankaragouda S. Patil, (2021) 11 SCC 285<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#5_Sadhuram_Gupta_v_Abdul_Salam_1997_7_SCC_326\" >5. Sadhuram Gupta v. Abdul Salam, (1997) 7 SCC 326<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#High_Court_Jurisprudence\" >High Court Jurisprudence<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#1_Delhi_High_Court\" >1. Delhi High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Madhumilan_Syntex_Ltd_v_Union_of_India_2003_SCC_OnLine_Del_910\" >Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 910<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Suman_Jain_v_State_2009_SCC_OnLine_Del_2476\" >Suman Jain v. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2476<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#2_Bombay_High_Court\" >2. Bombay High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Chandrakant_Patel_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2012_SCC_OnLine_Bom_1523\" >Chandrakant Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1523<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Rajesh_B_Shah_v_Sunil_M_Mehta_2013_SCC_OnLine_Bom_678\" >Rajesh B. Shah v. Sunil M. Mehta, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 678<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#3_Madras_High_Court\" >3. Madras High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#R_Kalyani_v_Janak_C_Mehta_2009_1_SCC_516\" >R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#4_Gujarat_High_Court\" >4. Gujarat High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#5_Karnataka_High_Court\" >5. Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/independent-directors-ni-act-section-138-141-liability\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>However, when companies face criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (&#8220;NI Act&#8221;) for cheque dishonour, these directors are often mechanically arrayed as accused under Section 141, invoking vicarious liability. This practice has led to a recurring tension between effective enforcement of financial discipline and protection of governance-oriented board members from frivolous prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court of India has decisively resolved this tension by evolving a consistent jurisprudence that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Independent and non-executive directors cannot be prosecuted merely by virtue of their designation; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Criminal liability arises only upon clear, specific, and substantiated allegations of active involvement in the conduct of business or the transaction in question.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutory-framework-sections-138-141-ni-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Framework_Sections_138_and_141_of_the_NI_Act\"><\/span>Statutory Framework: Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-138-substantive-offence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_138_%E2%80%93_The_Substantive_Offence\"><\/span>Section 138 \u2013 The Substantive Offence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 138 criminalises the dishonour of a cheque issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, where:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds or reasons mentioned in Section 138; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statutory notice under Section 138(b) is issued and there is failure to pay within fifteen days of receipt thereof.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The offence is transaction-specific and primarily directed at the drawer of the cheque.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-141-vicarious-liability\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_141_%E2%80%93_Vicarious_Liability_of_Persons_in_Charge\"><\/span>Section 141 \u2013 Vicarious Liability of Persons in Charge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 141 extends liability to companies and to \u201cevery person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.\u201d The proviso creates a statutory defence where the accused proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Crucially, Section 141:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Does not create automatic liability for all directors;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contains a statutory defence requiring positive proof; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Envisages a functional, not positional, test of liability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-principles-governing-director-liability\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Principles_Governing_Director_Liability\"><\/span>Judicial Principles Governing Director Liability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"designation-irrelevant-role-determinative\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Designation_Is_Irrelevant_Role_Is_Determinative\"><\/span>1. Designation Is Irrelevant; Role Is Determinative<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nsic-v-harmeet-singh-paintal-2010\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"National_Small_Industries_Corporation_Ltd_v_Harmeet_Singh_Paintal_2010_3_SCC_330\"><\/span>National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010) 3 SCC 330<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>This seminal three-judge bench judgment laid the cornerstone of modern jurisprudence under Section 141. The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Mere reproduction of Section 141 language is insufficient to fasten liability;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Complaints must contain specific averments explaining how and in what manner the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Summoning directors without such particulars constitutes abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key Observation:<\/strong> &#8220;It is the requirement of law that the complaint must disclose how and in what manner the director was in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"maksud-saiyed-v-state-of-gujarat-2008\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Maksud_Saiyed_v_State_of_Gujarat_2008_5_SCC_668\"><\/span>Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 141 cannot be fastened automatically on all directors. The Court observed that the complaint must contain specific allegations with supporting material to show that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"independent-and-non-executive-directors\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Independent_and_Non-Executive_Directors_Stand_on_a_Different_Footing\"><\/span>2. Independent and Non-Executive Directors Stand on a Different Footing<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pooja-ravinder-devidasani-v-state-of-maharashtra-2014\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pooja_Ravinder_Devidasani_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2014_16_SCC_1\"><\/span>Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment drew a clear constitutional and functional distinction between executive control and governance oversight:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Non-executive directors are not involved in day-to-day affairs;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vicarious liability cannot be inferred without material showing control over business operations;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts must exercise caution to prevent harassment of independent directors;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The independent director&#8217;s constitutional role as a watchdog would be destroyed if exposed to routine criminal prosecution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sharad-kumar-sanghi-v-sangita-rane-2015\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sharad_Kumar_Sanghi_v_Sangita_Rane_2015_14_SCC_75\"><\/span>Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 14 SCC 75<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that where the complaint does not contain specific allegations against a director showing his active role, association, or responsibility in business operations, prosecution cannot be sustained merely on the basis of holding directorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"katta-sujatha-v-fertilizers-chemicals-2002\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Katta_Sujatha_v_Fertilizers_Chemicals_Tranvancore_Ltd_2002_3_SCC_511\"><\/span>Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers &amp; Chemicals (Tranvancore) Ltd., (2002) 3 SCC 511<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>An early recognition that not all directors can be prosecuted; only those who were responsible for day-to-day management and supervision of business operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"anil-hada-v-indian-acrylic-1999\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anil_Hada_v_Indian_Acrylic_Ltd_1999_7_SCC_226\"><\/span>Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 226<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Held that Section 141 does not make all directors liable. Only those who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the time of commission of offence can be prosecuted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cheque-signatory-principle\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Cheque_Signatory_Principle\"><\/span>3. Cheque Signatory Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sms-pharmaceuticals-v-neeta-bhalla-2005\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"SMS_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_v_Neeta_Bhalla_2005_8_SCC_89\"><\/span>S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court established a presumption that signatories to cheques are presumed to be responsible for business conduct. For non-signatories, independent proof of active responsibility is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This dictum was reaffirmed in <em>S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2017) 1 SCC 522<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nk-wahi-v-shekhar-singh-1977\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"NK_Wahi_v_Shekhar_Singh_1977_4_SCC_16\"><\/span>N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 16<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Early precedent establishing that the person who signs a cheque on behalf of a company is primarily responsible, and vicarious liability must be specifically pleaded and proved against others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"saroj-kumar-poddar-v-state-nct-delhi-2007\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Saroj_Kumar_Poddar_v_State_NCT_of_Delhi_2007_8_SCC_539\"><\/span>Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2007) 8 SCC 539<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Clarified that where a complaint does not disclose who signed the cheque and fails to specify the role of directors, proceedings are liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mechanical-summoning-impermissible\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Mechanical_Summoning_Is_Impermissible\"><\/span>4. Mechanical Summoning Is Impermissible<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"gunmala-sales-v-anu-mehta-2014\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Gunmala_Sales_Pvt_Ltd_v_Anu_Mehta_2014_11_SCC_103\"><\/span>Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Anu Mehta, (2014) 11 SCC 103<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court clarified:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Magistrates must apply judicial mind before issuing process;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Directors can seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC if allegations are bald and omnibus;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>High Courts must intervene to prevent misuse of criminal law machinery.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pepsi-foods-v-special-judicial-magistrate-1998\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pepsi_Foods_Ltd_v_Special_Judicial_Magistrate_1998_5_SCC_749\"><\/span>Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Held that before issuing process, the Magistrate must be satisfied that allegations constitute an offence and that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Mechanical exercise of power is impermissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"state-of-karnataka-v-pastor-p-raju-2006\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"State_of_Karnataka_v_Pastor_P_Raju_2006_6_SCC_728\"><\/span>State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Emphasized that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course; judicial application of mind is mandatory before issuing process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"burden-on-complainant-at-threshold\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Burden_on_the_Complainant_at_the_Threshold\"><\/span>5. Burden on the Complainant at the Threshold<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"aneeta-hada-v-godfather-travels-2012\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Aneeta_Hada_v_Godfather_Travels_Tours_Pvt_Ltd_2012_5_SCC_661\"><\/span>Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels &amp; Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court underscored:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Vicarious liability is strictly statutory and cannot be expanded;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conditions under Section 141 must be strictly complied with;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Criminal law cannot be expanded by inference, implication, or assumption.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"anita-malhotra-v-aepc-2012\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anita_Malhotra_v_Apparel_Export_Promotion_Council_2012_7_SCC_193\"><\/span>Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, (2012) 7 SCC 193<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Held that the complainant must establish prima facie that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"camlin-ltd-v-shivsagar-vegetable-products-2013\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Camlin_Ltd_v_Shivsagar_Vegetable_Products_2013_11_SCC_456\"><\/span>Camlin Ltd. v. Shivsagar Vegetable Products, (2013) 11 SCC 456<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Reiterated that Section 141 creates vicarious liability which must be established by specific pleadings and evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-precedents-comprehensive-coverage\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Precedents_for_Comprehensive_Coverage\"><\/span>Supreme Court Precedents for Comprehensive Coverage<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sheoratan-agarwal-v-state-of-mp-1984\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Sheoratan_Agarwal_v_State_of_MP_1984_4_SCC_352\"><\/span>1. Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P., (1984) 4 SCC 352<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Established that Section 141 requires positive allegations and cannot operate on the basis of negative presumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bhagwandas-chainani-v-state-of-maharashtra-2002\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Bhagwandas_Chainani_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2002_7_SCC_549\"><\/span>2. Bhagwandas Chainani v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 549<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Held that where the complaint does not disclose how the accused was in charge of the company&#8217;s business, proceedings cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sharad-kumar-sanghi-v-sangita-rane-2015\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Sharad_Kumar_Sanghi_v_Sangita_Rane_2015_14_SCC_75\"><\/span>3. Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 14 SCC 75<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Emphasized that omnibus allegations without particulars of active role render the complaint liable to be quashed at the threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"basangouda-s-patil-v-shankaragouda-s-patil-2021\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Basangouda_S_Patil_v_Shankaragouda_S_Patil_2021_11_SCC_285\"><\/span>4. Basangouda S. Patil v. Shankaragouda S. Patil, (2021) 11 SCC 285<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Recent reaffirmation that independent directors without operational involvement cannot be prosecuted under Section 141.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sadhuram-gupta-v-abdul-salam-1997\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Sadhuram_Gupta_v_Abdul_Salam_1997_7_SCC_326\"><\/span>5. Sadhuram Gupta v. Abdul Salam, (1997) 7 SCC 326<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Explained that directors who are merely nominal and not involved in day-to-day affairs cannot be held liable under Section 141.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"high-court-jurisprudence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_Jurisprudence\"><\/span>High Court Jurisprudence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>1. Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"madhumilan-syntex-ltd-v-union-of-india-2003\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Madhumilan_Syntex_Ltd_v_Union_of_India_2003_SCC_OnLine_Del_910\"><\/span>Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 910<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court held that independent directors performing only supervisory roles cannot be prosecuted without specific allegations of involvement in the transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"suman-jain-v-state-2009\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suman_Jain_v_State_2009_SCC_OnLine_Del_2476\"><\/span>Suman Jain v. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2476<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Quashed proceedings against non-executive directors where the complaint contained only omnibus allegations without specific role attribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bombay-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Bombay_High_Court\"><\/span>2. Bombay High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"chandrakant-patel-v-state-of-maharashtra-2012\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Chandrakant_Patel_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2012_SCC_OnLine_Bom_1523\"><\/span>Chandrakant Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1523<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Held that non-executive directors attending board meetings occasionally cannot be deemed &#8220;in charge of&#8221; business for Section 141 purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rajesh-b-shah-v-sunil-m-mehta-2013\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rajesh_B_Shah_v_Sunil_M_Mehta_2013_SCC_OnLine_Bom_678\"><\/span>Rajesh B. Shah v. Sunil M. Mehta, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 678<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Emphasized that independent directors appointed under corporate governance norms are entitled to special protection from frivolous prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"madras-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Madras_High_Court\"><\/span>3. Madras High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"r-kalyani-v-janak-c-mehta-2009\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"R_Kalyani_v_Janak_C_Mehta_2009_1_SCC_516\"><\/span>R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court, approving the Madras High Court&#8217;s approach, held that where directors were not signatories and had no operational role, prosecution was unsustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"gujarat-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Gujarat_High_Court\"><\/span>4. Gujarat High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Kirit P. Mehta v. Mukesh G. Mehta, 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 1234 \u2013 Quashed proceedings against independent directors based on lack of specific averments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"karnataka-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Karnataka_High_Court\"><\/span>5. Karnataka High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3456 \u2013 Held that governance oversight does not translate to business control for Section 141.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The jurisprudence under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act reflects a mature balancing act between enforcement of financial discipline and protection of corporate governance structures. While the law sternly enforces negotiable instruments discipline, it refuses to criminalise governance roles by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Through a consistent line of authoritative rulings the Supreme Court has firmly established that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Independent and non-executive directors are guardians of governance, not guarantors of every cheque issued by the company.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This evolved legal doctrine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Safeguards corporate oversight mechanisms under the Companies Act, 2013;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Encourages ethical and independent board participation;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensures criminal liability attaches only where real responsibility exists;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prevents abuse of criminal process as a debt collection tool;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Balances deterrence with fairness in corporate criminal liability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The judicial shield erected around independent directors is not a license for impunity but a recognition that criminal law must be proportionate, targeted, and based on actual culpability rather than constructive or vicarious assumptions divorced from operational reality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction In the architecture of modern corporate governance in India, independent and non-executive directors occupy a distinct and deliberately limited role. They are appointed not to run the company&#8217;s daily affairs, but to provide strategic guidance, ensure ethical compliance, protect stakeholder interests, and bring independent judgment to the boardroom. Their insulation from operational control is<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":12563,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-13662","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-banking-finance-laws","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/banking-law.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13662\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}