Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28th August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Kiran Koppula, aged 47, residing in Mumbai and having an office in Pune.
  • Respondents:

1. M/S Piggy Ventures Private Limited, represented by Directors Jose Ryan Agnelo Gomes Prazeres and Jose Ralph De Fatima Gomes Prazeres.

2. DA Urban Nomads Community Pvt. Ltd. (DUNCPL), represented by its Directors.

3. Navin Kishore (individual).

4. Nakul Singh Purohit (individual).

  • Nature of Proceedings: Criminal writ petitions (Nos. 82‑85 of 2025) seeking quashment of four criminal cases (OA/NIA/398/2022/D, OA/NIA/399/2022/D, OA/NIA/46/2023/D, OA/NIA/47/2023/D) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Background: Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 entered into a share‑purchase and business‑acquisition agreement dated 01‑06‑2021, whereby Respondent 2 (through individuals 3 & 4) agreed to acquire 80 % of Respondent 1 for ₹80,00,000. An initial payment of ₹3,00,000 was made; the balance was to be paid in 11 instalments.
  • Cheques in Dispute:

| Date of Cheque | Return Memo | Amount (₹) | Cheque No. | OA No. | Complaint Filed On |

| 25‑06‑2022 | 23‑09‑2022 | 10,00,000 | 000118 | OA/398/2022 | 04‑11‑2022 (WPCR 82/2025) |

| 22‑09‑2022 | 23‑09‑2022 | 10,00,000 | 000119 | OA/399/2022 | 04‑11‑2022 (WPCR 83/2025) |

| 30‑10‑2022 | 02‑01‑2023 | 10,00,000 | 000120 | OA/46/2023 | 15‑02‑2023 (WPCR 84/2025) |

| 30‑11‑2022 | 02‑01‑2023 | 15,00,000 | 000121 | OA/47/2023 | 15‑02‑2023 (WPCR 85/2025) |

  • The cheques were presented by Respondent 1; they were returned due to “insufficient funds” in Respondent 2’s account. A legal notice was served, but payment was not made, leading to complaints under Section 138.
  • Petitioner’s Position: Petitioner Kiran Koppula was not a signatory to the agreement or the cheques. He became an additional Director of Respondent 2 on 17‑03‑2022 and a full Director on 30‑09‑2022, i.e., after the cheques were issued and presented. He contended that he had no executive function or responsibility for day‑to‑day affairs and that the complaint lacked specific averments under Section 141 of the NI Act linking him to the offence.
  • Respondent 1’s Position: Argued that petitioner, as a Director, received ₹15,00,000 (₹10,00,000 from petitioner’s personal account) and was instrumental in running Respondent 2’s affairs. Asserted that the complaint sufficiently implicated all three Directors and that the petitioner’s application for discharge had already been dismissed.
  • Legal Framework Cited: Section 141 of the NI Act (vicarious liability), and a series of Supreme Court judgments (Padmakar Dattatray Matkar v Malani Combines, Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia v India Ener‑Gen, K.S. Mehta v Morgan Securities, Hitesh Verma v Health Care at Home, HDFC Bank Ltd v State of Maharashtra, etc.) emphasizing the need for explicit averments that a director was “in charge of” and “responsible for” the company’s business at the time of the offence.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the complaint was silent on petitioner’s role, did not satisfy the twin requirements of Section 141, and therefore could not support criminal liability against him.
  • All four criminal cases were set aside; the orders dated 29‑12‑2022, 21‑08‑2023 and 27‑03‑2023 were declared void.
  • The writ petitions were allowed in terms of prayer clause (A), and the rule was made absolute.

Topics: Legal Liability, Negotiable Instruments Act, Corporate Governance