JSA successfully represents PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (“PFS”) before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a batch of connected quashing petitions challenging summoning orders issued in complaints filed by PFS under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JSA Advocates and Solicitors has successfully represented and defended PFS before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a batch of connected quashing petitions filed by NSL Energy Ventures Private Limited (“NEVPL”) and its Directors (collectively, “Accused Persons”) under Section 482 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). These petitions were filed to challenge summoning orders issued in complaints filed by PFS under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) against the Accused Persons.

PFS had extended a bridge loan of INR 125 Crores (“Bridge Loan”) in favour of NSL Nagapatnam Power and Infratech Limited (“Principal Borrower”), for the purpose of setting up a 1320 MW coal based thermal power project in Odisha. This Bridge Loan was secured, inter alia, by certain post-dated cheques (“PDCs”) issued by NEVPL, being a related entity of the Principal Borrower, to ensure timely repayment.

Following the sanction of the Bridge Loan, the Principal Borrower started defaulting in its repayment obligations. In view of the continuing default, PFS presented the PDCs for encashment towards discharge of its legally enforceable debt. However, all the PDCs were returned dishonoured.

Consequently, PFS filed complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act (“Complaints”) before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (“Ld. Magistrate”), against the Accused Persons. In view of the Complaints, The Ld. Magistrate issued summoning orders against the Accused Persons.

Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of summoning orders, the Accused Persons filed multiple quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Delhi High Court”). PFS opposed the quashing petitions and asserted that the Complaints filed by it against the Accused Persons are maintainable.

After a detailed hearing and upon consideration of the entire material on record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, by a common Judgment dated 27 November 2025, dismissed the batch of connected quashing petitions, and upheld PFS’s right to proceed with the Complaints against the Accused Persons. The key findings made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are as follows:

• The Court undertook a detailed examination of the roles and responsibilities of each Director to determine whether the summoning orders satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 141 of the NI Act. The Court reaffirmed that Section 141 creates a vicarious liability, extending criminal liability from the company to those individuals who, at the time of the offence, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business. The Court relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1; Chitalapati Srinivasa Raju v. SEBI, AIR 2018 SC 2411; and Kamal Kishor Shrigopal Taparia v. India Ener-gen Pvt Ltd, 2025 INSC 223.
• The Court dismissed the quashing petitions filed by the Directors who were signatories to the impugned cheques and upheld the summoning orders against these accused persons. The Court, however, allowed the quashing petitions filed by one of the directors who was classified as a Non-Executive Director under Form DIR-12 and was not a signatory to the cheques.
• The Accused Persons had also contended that certain payments were made in discharge of the loan, and that the Bridge Loan Agreement stood novated on account of certain communications between the parties on conversion of the Bridge Loan to a Term Loan. The Court rejected these contentions and held that (i) no essential elements of a new agreement were ever concluded as there was no offer by PFS, no acceptance by the borrower, and also no fresh consideration; (ii) payment of certain amounts was simply in discharge of existing arrears and could not signify novation; and (iii) since the original Bridge Loan Agreement remained fully in force, the post-dated security cheques continued to represent a valid and legally enforceable debt.
• The Court accordingly upheld PFS’s right to proceed with its Complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act against the issuer and the signatory of the cheques.

The JSA Disputes Team was led by Partner Sidharth Sethi, with support from the team comprising Partner Shreya Sircar, Associate Kunal Saini, and Junior Associate Riya Singh.

The matter was argued by Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate, instructed by JSA.

Matter value – INR 1,25,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees One Hundred Twenty Five Crores only).

Judgment Date – 27 November 2025