Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
In Gunmala Sales Private Limited and
others..vs..Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited and others, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while noting that a slightly different view was
taken in N. Rangchari ..vs.. BSNL, (2007)5 SCC 108, held that
the three Judge Bench in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd ..vs.. Neeta
Bhalla holds the field. In Gunmala Sales Private Limited and
others..vs..Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited and others,
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:29:48 :::
9 Apl136of2016
while enunciating that the averment that the partners were in
charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of
the firm is a basic requirement which persuades the Magistrate to
issue process against the partners, the Hon'ble Apex Court posed
the question whether the High Court must dismiss the petition
under section 482 of the Code as a rule if it is found that the
complaint does incorporate the basic averments. The question is
answered thus:
Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Navkar Buildhome Pvt. Ltd on 11 December, 2015
With due respect to the view taken by the learned Single
Judge, the observation that the averments should have been
supported with linkage of corresponding documents chaining
personal involvement of petitioner in interacting with the
complainant for making the complainant to believe that the
transaction is to be shouldered by the petitioner is too broad a
statement and is not consistent with the authoritative enunciation
of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, including the observation in
Gunmala Sales Private Limited and Others ..vs.. Navkar Infra
Projects Private Limited and others which reads thus:
The Companies Act, 1956
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
(emphasis supplied)
A bald cursory statement in a complaint that the
director is in-charge and responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company without anything more as
to the role of the director may not suffice as is observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 13 to 15 in National Small
Industries Corporation Limited ..vs.. Harmeet Singh Paintal
and another. However, the observations cannot be stood to
mean that the specific role played by the director qua the
transaction must be spelt out with particularity and by placing on
record documentary material.
Standard Chartered Bank vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. on 6 April, 2016
11 Gunmala Sales Private Limited and
others..vs..Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited and others
thus articulates that while it would be legally impermissible for
the Magistrate to take a cognizance in the absence of the basic
averments in the complaint, even if the complaint incorporates the
basic averments, the inherent power under section 482 of the
Code to prevent the abuse of process of law, can not be fettered
and the High Court is not as a rule obligated to dismiss the
petition under section 482 of the Code. Notwithstanding that the
complaint incorporates the basic averments, this Court is not
precluded from quashing the order of issuance of process if there
is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence or acceptable
circumstances which would rule out the role of the named
accused in the transaction. However, ordinarily if the complaint
incorporates the basic averments, this Court would be slow to
interfere and nip the trial in the bud. It would be in rare and
exceptional circumstances that despite the basic averments,
recourse to inherent power would be taken to quash the complaint
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:29:48 :::
12 Apl136of2016
if the role of the director or partner named as accused is excluded
by unimpeachable and incontrovertible material or circumstances.
12 In Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2016 Law Suit (SC) 344, which is again a Two
Judge Bench decision, the observations in Gunmala Sales Private
Limited and others vs. Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited
and others are referred to and quoted with approval.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajeev Khandelwal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 October, 2018
In all
fairness, it must be recorded that several other decisions are cited
by Shri R.P. Joshi including a decision of a learned Single Judge in
Mr. Rajeev Khandelwal v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
2013 All MR (Cri) 1946, which takes a view that the role of the
accused must be specifically spelt out. The relevant observations
of the learned Single Judge are thus :
1