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>Court upholds order in NI Act case, petitioner exempt from court appearance, challenge to be heard in Apex Court</h1> <h3>Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order of issuance of process under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments ... - Issues involved: Challenge to order of issuance of process u/s 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on resignation of the petitioner as a director and insufficiency of averments in the complaints.Summary:The petitioner challenged the order of issuance of process passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate based on complaints filed by a finance company under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaints alleged that the accused individuals, including the petitioner, issued dishonored cheques, leading to the legal action. The petitioner claimed to have resigned as a non-executive director of the company before the incidents in question and argued that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company.The respondent disputed the petitioner's resignation and contended that the issue of resignation could only be decided during the trial after the submission of relevant documents. The court noted that the complaints contained sufficient averments to attract the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically mentioning the roles and responsibilities of the accused individuals, including the petitioner, in the company's affairs.Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the need for specific averments regarding the role of the accused in such cases. The court found that the complaints adequately established the petitioner's involvement and liability under section 141 of the Act. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the order of issuance of process were dismissed, and the trial proceedings were expedited.The court exempted the petitioner from appearing in the trial court, allowing her advocate to represent her and record her plea and statement. The court clarified that its observations in the order were specific to the writ petitions and should not influence the trial court's decision. The petitioner sought to challenge the order in the Apex Court, and the interim relief was extended for six weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
