Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Kiran Koppula vs Respondents: Piggy Ventures Private Limited, DA Urban Nomads Community Pvt. Ltd., Navin Kishore, Nakul Singh Purohit.
  • Criminal cases: OA/NIA/398/2022/D, OA/NIA/399/2022/D, OA/NIA/46/2023/D, OA/NIA/47/2023/D, all under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Background: A share‑purchase agreement dated 01‑06‑2021 provided for acquisition of 80 % of Piggy Ventures by DA Urban Nomads Community and two individuals for Rs 80,00,000, with Rs 3,00,000 paid at signing and the balance payable in 11 instalments.
  • Cheques issued under the agreement:

| Date | 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 and returned for “insufficient funds”. The petitioner’s company deposited them; the respondent’s account lacked funds.
  • A legal notice was served; payment was not made; the petitioner filed complaints under Section 138, leading to issuance of process by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji.
  • Petitioner was appointed Additional Director of DA Urban Nomads Community on 17‑03‑2022 and Director on 30‑09‑2022, i.e., after the cheques were presented.

Legal Submissions

  • Petitioner (Adv. Ajay Menon) argued that the complaint does not specifically allege that the petitioner was “in charge of and responsible for” the company’s business at the time of the offence, a mandatory requirement of Section 141 NI Act. He cited Supreme Court precedents (Padmakar Dattatray Matkar, Kamalkishor Taparia, K.S. Mehta) emphasizing the need for explicit averments.
  • Respondent (Adv. Amogh Prabhudessai) contended that the petitioner was a key manager, that Rs 15,00,000 was received from his personal account, and that the complaint as a whole sufficed. He relied on Supreme Court decisions (Ashutosh Parasrampuriya, N. Rangachari, Hitesh Verma, HDFC Bank) supporting a broader construction of the complaint.

Court Analysis

  • The Court examined Section 141(1) and (2) of the NI Act, which require that the accused be in charge of and responsible to the company at the time of the offence, and that such allegations be expressly pleaded.
  • The complaint merely stated that the accused failed to honour the instalment schedule and that the cheques were dishonoured; it did not specify the petitioner’s role, nor did it mention his appointment dates.
  • The Court noted that the petitioner was not a signatory to the share‑purchase agreement nor to any of the cheques, and his directorship commenced after the cheques were presented (25‑06‑2022, 22‑09‑2022, 30‑10‑2022, 30‑11‑2022).
  • Applying the Supreme Court’s rulings, the Court held that without explicit averments of the petitioner being “in charge of” and “responsible for” the business, vicarious liability under Section 141 cannot be attached.
  • The impugned orders dated 29‑12‑2022, 21‑08‑2023 and 27‑03‑2023 were also found silent on the Section 141 requirements.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions (Nos. 82‑85 of 2025) are allowed as per prayer clause (A).
  • The rule is made absolute, quashing the issuance of process against Kiran Koppula in all four criminal cases.

Topics: Court Judgment, NI Act Liability