Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.65 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sushil Singla And Anr. vs Haripal Singh on 10 November, 1993
In Sushil Singla v. Haripal Singh [1994] 1 RCR 621, the facts were that Haripal Singh filed a complaint in respect of a cheque dated March 8, 1992, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for Rs. 1,25,000 issued by Qimat Lal Garg, managing director of M.M. Leasing Limited. It was averred that the petitioners, Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg, were simply directors of the company and were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company. The cheque was issued by Qimat Lal Garg for and on behalf of the company who was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners, Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg, were impleaded as accused although no offence was disclosed against them on a bare reading of the complaint. The complaint was quashed qua Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg as there was no allegation in the complaint against them that when the offence was committed by the company, they were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Allegations in the complaint had been made against the company and its managing director, Qimat Lal Garg, and the cheque had also been issued by the managing director of the company.
V. N. Samant vs K.G.N. Traders And Another on 12 August, 1994
He drew sustenance for this submission from the case V. N. Samant v. K. G. N. Traders [1995] 1 BC 346; [1998] 91 Comp Cas 612 by the Karnataka High Court.
The Companies Act, 1956
1