Specific averments are required to fasten director liability in cheque dishonour complaints; bare repetition is insufficient.

Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be fastened on a director by a mechanical repetition of statutory language. A complaint must contain clear, specific and fact-based averments showing how and in what manner the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business; a bare assertion that the person was a director or responsible for day-to-day affairs is insufficient. On that basis, the Court held that process against the director could not be sustained and quashed the complaint insofar as it related to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: Whether a director can be summoned in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of bald and repetitive averments that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: The complaint merely stated that the petitioner, being a director, was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. The governing rule under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that vicarious liability cannot be fastened by a mechanical repetition of the statutory language. The complaint must contain clear and unambiguous particulars showing how and in what manner the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Mere status as a director, or a bald assertion of responsibility, is insufficient for issuance of process.

Conclusion: The averments were insufficient to justify summoning the petitioner, and the complaint was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: Process against a director in a cheque dishonour complaint cannot be sustained without specific, fact-based averments establishing the director's role in the company's business.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires specific averments showing the accused director's actual role and responsibility in the conduct of the company's business; a mere reproduction of statutory language is not enough.

---