सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने चेक‑बाउंस (S.138 NI Act) मोरेटोरियम मुद्दे को बड़े बेंच तक भेजा – IBC और निदेशकों की जिम्मेदारी पर प्रभाव

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and laws; its decisions shape legal and policy frameworks (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has sent a pivotal question to a larger three‑judge bench. The question is whether proceedings under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) — criminal provision dealing with cheque bounce; aims to preserve confidence in cheque transactions (GS3: Economy)">Section 138 NI Act</span> can be stayed during the <span class="key-term" data-definition="moratorium — a statutory stay on legal actions against a debtor during insolvency proceedings, intended to give breathing space for resolution (GS3: Economy)">moratorium</span> that operates under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) — legislation governing corporate and personal insolvency; provides a structured process for debt resolution (GS3: Economy)">IBC</span>. The Court emphasised that the offence is primarily criminal, not a simple debt‑recovery suit.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of <strong>Justice J.B. Pardiwala</strong> and <strong>Justice K.V. Viswanathan</strong> rejected the view that cheque‑bounce cases are merely civil.</li> <li>It introduced a “<span class="key-term" data-definition="tiered understanding — a judicial concept separating the criminal punishment (Tier I) from the compensatory relief (Tier II) in cheque bounce cases (GS3: Economy)">tiered</span>” approach: <strong>Tier I</strong> covers imprisonment or fine; <strong>Tier II</strong> covers compensation to the complainant.</li> <li>Section 79(15) of the IBC expressly excludes payment of fines from the moratorium, so the criminal side cannot be stayed.</li> <li>The compensatory side (Tier II) may fall under the moratorium because it can deplete the insolvent debtor’s assets.</li> <li>Directors prosecuted under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 141 of the NI Act — provision that holds directors personally liable for offences committed by the company under Section 138 (GS3: Economy)">Section 141 NI Act</span> will enjoy moratorium protection for the compensation component while they are in personal insolvency under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Part III of the IBC — provisions dealing with personal insolvency and the protection of individual debtors (GS3: Economy)">Part III of the IBC</span>.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The dispute originated from a cheque of over <strong>₹5 crore</strong> issued by the appellant to <strong>UCO Bank</strong> under a Letter of Credit. The cheque bounced in June 2015, leading to a criminal case in a Chennai Magistrate Court. While the company entered liquidation, the appellant also faced personal insolvency proceedings. The Madras High Court held that the cheque‑bounce case is criminal and not barred by the insolv