GUNMALA SALES PVT. LTD. vs ANU MEHTA .

The Supreme Court held that for a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is insufficient to merely assert that the Directors were responsible for the conduct of the company without providing specific evidence of their involvement. The Court emphasized that a bald assertion does not meet the legal threshold required to maintain such a complaint. Consequently, the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was upheld, affirming the necessity of substantiating claims against directors in cheque bounce cases.