TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Director not liable for dishonored cheque post-resignation. Specific averments required. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient complaint details.</h1> <h3>DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Versus JN. SAREEN AND ANR</h3> DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Versus JN. SAREEN AND ANR - 2008 (8) SCC 1, 2008 AIR 2255, 2008 (8) SCR 603, 2008 (6) JT 609, 2008 (8) SCALE 54 Issues Involved:1. Effect of a post-dated cheque vis-`a-vis prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Liability of a director who resigned before the cheque was dishonored.3. Requirements of specific averments in the complaint petition under Section 141 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Effect of a Post-Dated Cheque vis-`a-vis Prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The court examined whether a post-dated cheque can lead to prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cheque in question was issued in April 1995 but was dated January 28, 1998, and was dishonored upon presentation in June 1998. The court noted that the appellant took undue advantage of the post-dated cheques given on behalf of the company. The statute does not envisage the misuse of a privilege conferred upon a party to the contract.2. Liability of a Director Who Resigned Before the Cheque was DishonoredThe court found that the First Respondent resigned from the directorship on May 25, 1996, and his resignation was accepted and informed to the Registrar of Companies. The cheque was dishonored in 1998, and the complaint was filed on August 20, 1998. The court held that a person who had resigned with the knowledge of the complainant in 1996 could not be held responsible for the dishonor of the cheque in 1998. The First Respondent had no control over the company's affairs at the time of the dishonor and could not be made responsible for ensuring the cheque's payment.3. Requirements of Specific Averments in the Complaint Petition under Section 141 of the ActThe court emphasized the necessity of specific averments in the complaint petition to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act. The complaint did not disclose who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, nor did it establish the involvement of the First Respondent in the commission of the offense. The complaint petition proceeded on the basis that the averments were sufficient for summoning the accused, which the court found inadequate. The court reiterated that strict compliance with the provision is required, and mere allegations without specific details are insufficient to attract constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act.ConclusionThe court concluded that the First Respondent, having resigned from the directorship in 1996, could not be held liable for the dishonor of a cheque in 1998. The complaint petition lacked specific averments necessary to establish constructive liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appeal was dismissed, and no interference with the impugned judgment was warranted.
TaxTMI 