Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.88 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Pawan Kumar Goel vs State Of U.P. on 17 November, 2022
In the ultimate appraisal of totality of facts and law
involved in this case, there appears hardly any dispute about
CRLMC No.1392 of 2016 Page 10 of 12
petitioner not to be a signatory of the cheque and her implication
in this case as General Secretary of the Trust is without arraigning
the "Trust" as an accused in the complaint, but Section 141 of NI
Act makes it obligatory for the complainant-OP No.2 in this case
to arraign the Trust as an accused to make the person in charge of
and responsible to such Trust for the conduct of its business as
vicariously liable for dishonor of cheque issued for the Trust,
which was not done in this case, nonetheless there is no averment
in the complaint as to who, at the time of the commission of
offence, was in charge of and was responsible to the Trust and
further, such inherent defect remains incurable in view of the law
laid down in Pawan(supra) which lacuna under law gets further
widened when the complainant fails to discharge his primary
responsibility to make specific averment as required under Section
141 of NI Act so as to make either the petitioner as the Secretary
or OP No. 3 as the President of Trust vicariously liable for
dishonor of cheque. Hence, the mandate of Section 141 of NI Act
having not pleaded and established remotely in this case together
with admittedly the incurable and inherent defect of non-impletion
of the Trust as an accused in the complaint makes it very clear that
the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and therefore,
CRLMC No.1392 of 2016 Page 11 of 12
the further proceeding in the complaint is nothing but an abuse of
process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, the complaint as
a whole being unsustainable in the eye of law needs to be quashed
and accordingly, the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.60 of 2014 of
the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul is hereby quashed.
Simeya Hariramani vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 August, 2018
In laying down the aforesaid principle in the above case,
the Apex Court has referred the principle summarized on Section
141 of N.I. Act lays down earlier by it in National Small
Industries Corporation Limited Vrs. Harmeet Singh Paintal;
(2010) 3 SCC 330 wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-39 has
laid down the principle as follows:-
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Companies Act, 1956
1