Summoned without cause

Picture a complaint filed against a large company qua a dispute over a defective product, a routine telecommunications billing dispute or delay in processing a refund. Instead of directing the company to respond, a tribunal issues a personal summons to the CEO, followed by a bailable warrant. The headlines write themselves, and the damage - reputational, commercial, personal - is done long before any court considers whether the order was legally sound.

Such cases continue to arise with troubling frequency, despite India's ambition to be a business-friendly economic leader. They raise a fundamental question: on what legal basis can a company's senior-most officer be personally summoned for a dispute in which they had no involvement or knowledge? In many cases, there is none. Yet the practice persists due to statutory gaps, tactical litigation, and misunderstandings of corporate structures.

Modern corporations are fundamentally different from the proprietorships and partnerships of the past. Large Indian businesses now operate across vast geographies through layered management structures, with responsibilities delegated across multiple levels. A CEO or director overseeing thousands of employees, transactions, and customer touchpoints cannot reasonably be expected to know the details of every delivery issue or individual grievance. Indeed, the very purpose of modern corporate architecture is to distribute decision-making and operational responsibility to those closest to the relevant function.

The Supreme Court decisively addressed this issue in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, rejecting the view that a company's chairman could be summoned merely as its “alter ego." In Gautam Hari Singhania vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court quashed summons where no specific averments had been made in the complaint to fasten vicarious liability on the MD and other directors. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Haryana, reiterated that an individual’s seniority within a corporate structure is no substitute for pleaded facts demonstrating personal involvement.

A significant risk arises where statutes are silent on the circumstances in which corporate officers may be held personally liable. Laws such as the Companies Act, 2013, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Legal Metrology Act, 2009 impose vicarious liability only subject to specific statutory conditions, including pleadings that the officer was responsible for the company’s business at the relevant time. By contrast, others like the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 grants broad procedural powers but does not prescribe a clear threshold before senior corporate officials can be personally summoned.

When warrants are issued against key managerial personnel of companies, the consequences are immediate. Media scrutiny, investor concern, regulatory attention, and reputational harm follow long before any adjudication. The resulting market uncertainty can affect not only the individual concerned but also the company and its employees.

There is also a less visible cost. A defective or incorrect product delivered by a seller may lead to criminal proceedings in which the e-commerce platform’s CEO is summoned. The company must then spend substantial resources challenging the proceedings and protecting its personnel.

If contesting a claim risks personal summons and public scrutiny of senior executives, companies may choose settlement over litigation, even where complaints are unfounded, merely to avoid disproportionate costs and disruption.

Naming key managerial personnel in complaints without a legal basis, merely to exert pressure, is a misuse of process. The proper test is whether specific allegations exist against the individual and whether the relief sought genuinely requires their presence in the proceedings.

None of this suggests that key managerial personnel are immune from accountability. They remain responsible, in law and to stakeholders, for the conduct of the enterprises they lead. The point is simply that where a CEO or senior officer has neither knowledge of nor involvement in a dispute, compelling personal appearance serves little purpose. Proceedings should instead be directed at the officer responsible for the matter, with the personal appearance of senior management reserved for exceptional cases where their involvement is specifically established.  

The principle is well settled; what remains is the consistent and disciplined application, by advocates, tribunals and courts.

About the authors: Dheeraj Nair is a Partner, Avni Sharma is a Principal Associate and Vikramaditya Singh is an Associate at JSA Advocates & Solicitors.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.