Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 1 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S.P. Mani And Mohan Dairy vs Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan on 16 September, 2022
7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Mani and
Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan3 in criminal Appeal
No.1586/2022 dated 16.09.2022 has dealt with the issue extensively,
where, the High Court of Madras in exercise of its power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C allowed the petition and quashed the complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act on the ground of non-fulfillment of
the requirement of Section 141 of the NI Act. The high court in that
case held that merely by reciting the words used under Section 141 of
the NI Act in the complaint, no vicarious liability can be fastened on
the partners of the firm.
Simeya Hariramani vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 August, 2018
- 3 -Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004644
pleadings and documents, it has been submitted that the present
petitioners are not responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the
accused firm and, therefore, the order of summoning suffers from
legal infirmity. According to her, the cheque in question had been
drawn and issued by partners, namely, Basant Bhandari and Rajeev
Pratap and was not issued by the petitioners. The ingredients of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, „the NI
Act‟) are therefore not fulfilled. Section 138 of the NI Act does not
speak about the joint liability. Section 141 of NI Act does not make all
partners liable for the offence. Criminal liability would fasten on those
who, at the time of commission of offence, were in charge and were
responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the firm. It is
further stated that it is very much in the knowledge of the respondent
that no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners in view of the
supplementary partnership deed dated 01.05.2018 and agreement
dated 28.06.2018. The present petitioners have been unnecessarily
arrayed in the complaint. The reliance is placed on the decisions of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah
and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.1 and Dilip Hariramani v. Bank
of Baroda 2.
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004
- 3 -Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004644
pleadings and documents, it has been submitted that the present
petitioners are not responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the
accused firm and, therefore, the order of summoning suffers from
legal infirmity. According to her, the cheque in question had been
drawn and issued by partners, namely, Basant Bhandari and Rajeev
Pratap and was not issued by the petitioners. The ingredients of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, „the NI
Act‟) are therefore not fulfilled. Section 138 of the NI Act does not
speak about the joint liability. Section 141 of NI Act does not make all
partners liable for the offence. Criminal liability would fasten on those
who, at the time of commission of offence, were in charge and were
responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the firm. It is
further stated that it is very much in the knowledge of the respondent
that no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners in view of the
supplementary partnership deed dated 01.05.2018 and agreement
dated 28.06.2018. The present petitioners have been unnecessarily
arrayed in the complaint. The reliance is placed on the decisions of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matters of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah
and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.1 and Dilip Hariramani v. Bank
of Baroda 2.
1