Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.41 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Dcm Financial Services Ltd vs J.N.Sareen & Anr on 13 May, 2008
26. It is then the case of petitioners that at the time of presentation
and dishonour of cheques, they were not connected with the
operations and conduct of business of the accused company and had
resigned much prior to the same, and thus, cannot be made liable
vicariously liable for commission of offence under Section 138.
Several documents have been filed on record to establish the said
fact. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the decision in DCM
Financial Services Ltd. v. J.N. Sareen, (2008) 8 SCC 1. The
Hon‟ble Apex Court in this case, however, had expressed that the
role of respondent/director as signatory to a post-dated cheque was
not specifically averred in the complaint and the said plea was raised
for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Court had observed
as under:
Kamal Goyal vs M/S United Phosphorus Ltd on 4 February, 2010
27. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Kamal Goyal v. United
Phosphorus Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 447, and Nikhil P. Gandhi
v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 1856 cannot come to the
rescue of the petitioners at this stage, being distinguishable on facts.
In all the decisions placed for consideration before this Court, the
person exonerated was the director of the company, whose
resignation could be easily inferred from the documents on record
such as Form 32.
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2020
28. This is a case where it is not in dispute that the cheques in
question were signed by the petitioners on behalf of the accused
company. It is also not is dispute that the cheques and accompanying
declaration were submitted to the complainant bank in
acknowledgement and discharge of the liability towards the
complainant under the „Credit Facility‟. The amounts mentioned in
the cheques also remain undisputed. As already observed in
preceding discussion, presumption under Section 139 NI Act, 1881
Signature Not Verified CRL. M.C. 2359/2022 & connected matter Page 22 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:23.11.2022
18:16:29
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005060
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005061
would certainly arise in favour of the respondent bank in the given
facts and circumstances, in view of the dictum of Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra) and Kalamani Tex
(supra).
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021
"14. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain
reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely
overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the
statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and
Section 139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once the
signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable
instrument are established, then these „reverse onus‟
clauses become operative. In such a situation, the
obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the
presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been
crystalized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v.
State of Gujarat in the following words: