Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the cheque itself was not issued by the Company of which the petitioner has been described as the Managing Director. There was no averment that the cheque was issued by or on behalf of the Company. However, statutory notice was issued only to the Managing Director mentioning the name of the petitioner of one “Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd”. Whereas the cheque was issued for the services of one maintained account. Admittedly, there was no notice issued to the said Company by the respondent herein. Further, there was no specific averment as against the Managing Director or any of the Director of the said Company. That apart, the petitioner is not the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Managing Director of the Company called “M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd., and he is only a non-executive director and he is neither the Managing Director nor the Signatory to the cheque. Therefore, no cause of action arose to implead the petitioner as an accused. If a person is neither the Managing Director nor the signatory to the cheque, the complaint would not be maintainable without the role of the accused being spelt out in detail. Further the complaint could not be maintained against a director alone without impleading the Company which has issued the cheque.