Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)
Arvind Satpaul Gupta Partner Of M/S. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 September, 2017
cites
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004
7 He further relied on the Judgment in the matter of
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 15. By relying on last paragraph of that
Judgment, the learned Advocate averred that criminal liability
under Section 141 of the N.I.Act cannot be fastened against the
Partner or a Director, who at the time of commission of offence
was a sleeping Partner or ladies as well as others, who may not be
knowing anything about the business of the Firm. There cannot
be any presumption that every partner knows about the
transaction.
A.K.Singhania vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.Ltd.& Anr on 17 October, 2013
18 By now, it is well settled that there needs to be
averment in the complaint that Partner of Firm or Director of the
Company was in-charge of and was responsible to the Firm or the
Company, as the case may be for conduct of the business of the
Firm/Company, as the case may be. The basic requirement under
Section 141 of the N.I.Act is to make specific averment in the
complaint that accused Partner or Director who was neither
signatory to the cheque nor the Managing Director or Managing
Partner, as the case may be, at the time of commission of offence
was in-charge of and responsible to the Firm or Company for
conduct of business. No particular form in this regard is
necessary. It is not at all necessary to plead that such a Partner or
Director has any specific role in respect of the transaction leading
to issuance of the cheque. Section 141 of the N.I.Act makes the
Partner or Director in-charge of and responsible for the Firm or the
Company for conducting business of the Firm or Company, liable
Gaikwad RD 16/18
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:23:28 :::
(3)WPNo.13072017
for penal consequences. Valuable reference can be had to this
proposition from the Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in
the matter of A.K.Singhaniya v. Gujrath State Fertilizers
Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 SC 71, Katta Sujatha v.
Fertilizer & Chemicals, Travancore reported in (2002) 7 SCC
655, K.K.Ahuja v. V.K.Vora, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and
National Small Scale Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330.
K.K. Ahuja vs V.K. Vora & Anr on 6 July, 2009
18 By now, it is well settled that there needs to be
averment in the complaint that Partner of Firm or Director of the
Company was in-charge of and was responsible to the Firm or the
Company, as the case may be for conduct of the business of the
Firm/Company, as the case may be. The basic requirement under
Section 141 of the N.I.Act is to make specific averment in the
complaint that accused Partner or Director who was neither
signatory to the cheque nor the Managing Director or Managing
Partner, as the case may be, at the time of commission of offence
was in-charge of and responsible to the Firm or Company for
conduct of business. No particular form in this regard is
necessary. It is not at all necessary to plead that such a Partner or
Director has any specific role in respect of the transaction leading
to issuance of the cheque. Section 141 of the N.I.Act makes the
Partner or Director in-charge of and responsible for the Firm or the
Company for conducting business of the Firm or Company, liable
Gaikwad RD 16/18
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:23:28 :::
(3)WPNo.13072017
for penal consequences. Valuable reference can be had to this
proposition from the Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in
the matter of A.K.Singhaniya v. Gujrath State Fertilizers
Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 SC 71, Katta Sujatha v.
Fertilizer & Chemicals, Travancore reported in (2002) 7 SCC
655, K.K.Ahuja v. V.K.Vora, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and
National Small Scale Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330.
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
18 By now, it is well settled that there needs to be
averment in the complaint that Partner of Firm or Director of the
Company was in-charge of and was responsible to the Firm or the
Company, as the case may be for conduct of the business of the
Firm/Company, as the case may be. The basic requirement under
Section 141 of the N.I.Act is to make specific averment in the
complaint that accused Partner or Director who was neither
signatory to the cheque nor the Managing Director or Managing
Partner, as the case may be, at the time of commission of offence
was in-charge of and responsible to the Firm or Company for
conduct of business. No particular form in this regard is
necessary. It is not at all necessary to plead that such a Partner or
Director has any specific role in respect of the transaction leading
to issuance of the cheque. Section 141 of the N.I.Act makes the
Partner or Director in-charge of and responsible for the Firm or the
Company for conducting business of the Firm or Company, liable
Gaikwad RD 16/18
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:23:28 :::
(3)WPNo.13072017
for penal consequences. Valuable reference can be had to this
proposition from the Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in
the matter of A.K.Singhaniya v. Gujrath State Fertilizers
Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 SC 71, Katta Sujatha v.
Fertilizer & Chemicals, Travancore reported in (2002) 7 SCC
655, K.K.Ahuja v. V.K.Vora, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and
National Small Scale Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330.
Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Anu Mehta & Ors on 17 October, 2014
5 Mr.Samrat Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing for
the petitioner further argued that basic doctrine test is not fulfilled
in the case in hand and the learned trial Court has ignored the law
laid down in the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the
matter of Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. v. Anu Mehta & Ors.
reported in (2015) 4 Cal. Law Times 310 (HC). The learned
Advocate drew my attention to paragraph Nos.8, 9(c), as well as
paragraph No.33 from the said Judgment and contended that this
Court can quash the complaint because of absence of more
particulars of role of the Director/Partner in the Company or Firm,
as the case may be, and it is not sufficient to take cognizance on
Gaikwad RD 4/18
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2017 02:23:28 :::
(3)WPNo.13072017
the basis of bald statement that the accused being a partner in the
firm is in-charge of and responsible to the Company/Firm, as the
case may be. In his submissions, in the case in hand, no detail
averments are made to infer commission of alleged offence by the
petitioner/accused No.4, who is merely a sleeping partner of the
Firm.
The Companies Act, 1956
Standard Chartered Bank vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. on 6 April, 2016
6 The learned Advocate further relied on the Judgment
of the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Standard
Chartered Bank v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in
2016 (5) Mh.L.J. 44 and particularly, paragraph No.16 thereof in
order to demonstrate that the liability arises only when it is
established that the accused was in-charge of and responsible for
the conduct of business of Firm at the time of commission of the
offence. Paragraph 16 of the said Judgment reads thus :
1