Third parties like auditors may also fall within the ambit of Section 339 if data says that they knowingly participated in, facilitated, or assisted the fraudulent activities. The Update Based on NCLT Mumbai, auditors and other third parties may be held liable under Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 if they are found through evidence to have knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct of business.
In a landmark decision related to IL&FS project, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, has explained the ambit of Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal observed that liability for fraudulent conduct of a company is not limited to directors, managers, or other officers only. Third parties like auditors may also fall within the ambit of Section 339 if data says that they knowingly participated in, facilitated, or assisted the fraudulent activities.
The Update
Based on NCLT Mumbai, auditors and other third parties may be held liable under Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 if they are found through evidence to have knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct of business. Even so, the question of liability for such persons is not automatic and hinges on the proof of their role or enabling of the fraud.
The Impact
This judgment broadens the scope of Section 339, yet at the same time it safeguards the professionals from being automatically held liable merely based on their linkage with the company.
The Action
Audit firms consultants’ and advisors, and other external stakeholders should take steps to safeguard their independence and keep proper records which show compliance with the professional standards.
Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 talks about liability for fraudulent conduct of business. In general, this provision lets the Tribunal, to make certain people personally answerable for company debts, but only when it was shown that the business was run with an intent to defraud creditors. Or, when the conduct was for dishonest or fraudulent purposes, you know. Most of the time, people connect Section 339 with directors, managers, and officers, basically the folks who control or manage the company’s affairs. Yet, the language in Section 339, also brings in “any person” who was, knowingly a part of carrying on the business in a fraudulent way.
So the main issue before the NCLT was, whether the expression “any person” only points to insiders within the company, or if it can also be stretched to outsiders like auditors, and professional firms, that are involved in the process but not running the company day to day.
The proceedings came about from investigations into the affairs of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) and its subsidiaries, kind of. The Union of India then tried to implead a bunch of auditor firms, particular partners, and other third parties. This was done based on findings that were contained in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office reports. Some auditors however, challenged how maintainable the proceedings were against them, and they added that Section 339 only really talks about persons who are involved in carrying on the company’s business.
In their view statutory auditors just do an independent audit exercise, and they should not be treated the same as people who manage, or conduct, the company’s affairs. So they basically argued that Section 339 should not apply to them at all.
The Tribunal rejected the argument that the phrase "any person" should be interpreted narrowly, or only in some tight sense. It basically noted that directors, managers, and officers already form the core management class of a company. So, if the expression "any person" were read as if it covered only insiders, then it would get pretty largely redundant, like there would be hardly anything left to say.
The NCLT said the expression works like a broad catch all provision, able to include outsiders who participate in, aid, assist, or facilitate fraud that is committed within the company. Otherwise, external parties who knowingly throw in their weight to fraudulent schemes might end up escaping liability despite their real involvement.
Still, the Tribunal also added a key limitation, because it matters. Just being connected with a company by itself is not enough. Liability comes only when the person knowingly took part in carrying on the fraudulent business, or when they facilitated the fraud while possessing the necessary awareness. So, knowledge and involvement are, in a way, the essential ingredients for liability under Section 339.
The Tribunal spent quite a bit of time on how statutory auditors should be viewed, like really focused on that point. The Auditors replied that the Companies Act already has its own separate set of rules about auditor misconduct, with Section 140(5) covering fraudulent conduct by auditors, and Section 447 that prescribes punishment for fraud.
Even so, the NCLT said these sections do not automatically mean auditors are out of the picture for Section 339. The Tribunal noted that statutory auditors are supposed to stay independent, and ordinarily it cannot be taken for granted that they are involved in fraud, just because they carried out the audit of that company.
At the same time, independence isnt a theory, it is something that has to be checked as a matter of fact, and that check must be done using actual evidence. The Tribunal also pointed to the popular idea that auditors are “watchdogs” and not “bloodhounds.” But then it added, in a way, that a watchdog can’t just claim safety or immunity if it, deliberately or in a conscious manner, turns a blind eye to fraudulent conduct, and in that way ends up enabling fraud. So, if the evidence indicates active involvement, collusion, aiding, or intentional, conscious facilitation of fraud, then auditors can still be pulled into liability under Section 339.
The NCLT set out quite a few key principles, sort of. First, the words "any person" aren’t only for directors, managers, or officers. They can reach outsiders, or even third parties who are implicated in fraudulent conduct, in one way or another. Second, liability under Section 339 really needs knowledge. So a person has to be knowingly involved in carrying on the business, and that involvement has to be with an intent to defraud creditors, or for some other fraudulent purpose. Third, you cannot just pin liability on third parties automatically only because they interacted with the company, or because they took part in transactions that were later alleged to be fraudulent. That alone doesn’t do it. Fourth, auditors are not protected from Section 339 proceedings. But their liability turns on evidence, like proof of participation, facilitation, collusion, or conscious assistance in fraud. It’s not about mere negligence, or not enough by itself. Finally, the Tribunal basically said that whether auditors, or other third parties, are truly culpable can only be worked out after examining the evidence and the allegations already on record.
The ruling is important because it balances accountability, with fairness or something. For regulators and creditors, the decision sort of confirms that external actors can’t wriggle out of scrutiny just because they’re not literally in the formal management structure. And if they knowingly assist fraudulent schemes, they may end up with civil liability. For auditors and professional advisors, the judgment gives reassurance that liability is not automatic, not by default. Courts and tribunals still have to sift through the facts, distinguishing professional negligence, from active participation in fraud, even if that sounds similar at first.
Also, the decision underlines the weight of keeping professional independence, documenting how decisions got made, and making sure statutory duties are met. Those records may become crucial, if any questions pop up about knowledge, or personal involvement in fraudulent conduct.
The NCLT ’s ruling in the IL&FS proceedings kind of clarifies that Section 339 is broader than a rule meant just for company insiders. In other words, third parties, like auditors, may actually fall within its ambit where there is evidence that points to knowing participation in fraudulent conduct of business, not just being around it.
At the same time, the Tribunal also made it plain that auditors cannot be treated as liable only because they acted as auditors. Their behaviour has to be judged on the specific facts, and liability only kicks in where the evidence shows collusion, facilitation, or some real active involvement in the fraud itself. So the judgment kind of lands a balance, between guarding professional independence and making sure that no one participant in a fraudulent scheme manages to escape accountability merely because they are outside the formal management structure of the company.
Vakilkaro is a platform, owned by Jsons Solicitors Private Limited that simplifies access to legal and compliance advice in India. It connects people to registered practitioners such as Advocates, Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries to handle company registration, documentation, drafting contracts and compliance requirements.
Besides that, the platform offers easy-to-understand explanations and the latest developments in corporate law taxation insolvency, and other areas so that businesses are always well-informed. Vakilkaro is not a law firm, nor does it provide legal advice directly. Instead, it is a medium through which users get connected with professionals, and services are offered both online and offline.
Key Takeaways
- Third parties like auditors may also fall within the ambit of Section 339 if data says that they knowingly participated in, facilitated, or assisted the fraudulent activities.
- Can Auditors and Third Parties Be Held Liable Under Section 339?
- The Update Based on NCLT Mumbai, auditors and other third parties may be held liable under Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 if they are found through evidence to have knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct of business.
- So, if the evidence indicates active involvement, collusion, aiding, or intentional, conscious facilitation of fraud, then auditors can still be pulled into liability under Section 339.
- Conclusion The NCLT ’s ruling in the IL&FS proceedings kind of clarifies that Section 339 is broader than a rule meant just for company insiders.
Official External Resources
Use these primary/official sources to verify rules, forms, fees, timelines and regulatory updates before publication.
Frequently asked questions
NCLT Clarifies Section 339 Liability of Auditors and Third Parties in Corporate Fraud Cases+
Third parties like auditors may also fall within the ambit of Section 339 if data says that they knowingly participated in, facilitated, or assisted the fraudulent activities. The Update Based on NCLT Mumbai, auditors and other third parties may be held liable under Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 if they are found through evidence to have knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct of business.