TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 quashes proceedings against director, emphasizes trial for cheque issue.</h1> <h3>Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Limited, Chennai and Ors. Versus STCL Limited, Bangalore</h3> The court partially allowed the petitions, quashing proceedings against the third petitioner, a director, due to lack of evidence of involvement in ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the cheques in question were issued in discharge of any debt or other liability or as collateral security for a future liability.2. Whether proceedings could be initiated against the third petitioner, merely on the basis of her designation as a director of the petitioner company.Summary:Issue 1: Cheques Issued in Discharge of Debt or as SecurityThe petitioners argued that the cheques in question were furnished as security for the performance of the respective contracts and not in discharge of any debt or other legal liability. They relied on the apex court's decision in Narayana Menon vs. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39, stating that if a cheque is issued for security, it would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the NI Act. The respondent contended that the cheques were issued during a contractual relationship and were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, thus justifying the initiation of action under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court reviewed various case laws, including Narayana Menon, M.M.T.C. Limited vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Private Limited, and others, to determine the nature of the cheques. It concluded that the question of whether the cheques were issued as security or in discharge of a debt would require examination at trial. The court emphasized that presumptions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act favor the complainant, and the accused must rebut these presumptions at trial.Issue 2: Proceedings Against the Third PetitionerThe court examined whether the third petitioner, designated as a director, was involved in the company's affairs and the transactions in question. It concluded that there was no evidence to show her involvement. Therefore, the proceedings against the third petitioner were quashed. However, the court found no grounds to interfere with the proceedings against petitioner no. 1 and 2.Conclusion:The petitions were partly allowed. The proceedings against the third petitioner were quashed, while the petitions concerning petitioner no. 1 and 2 were dismissed. The order of stay granted earlier was vacated.
TaxTMI 
