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>Retired Petitioner Escapes Liability for Bounced Cheque as Court Stays Proceedings Due to Non-Involvement.</h1> <h3>MAN MOHAN PATNAIK Versus CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT. LTD & ORS.</h3> MAN MOHAN PATNAIK Versus CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT. LTD & ORS. - TMI Issues involved: Impugning summoning order u/s 138 of NI Act based on retirement before cheque presentation.Summary:In the present case, the petitioner challenged the summoning order dated 19.09.2019 made by the Metropolitan Magistrate u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, a signatory to the post-dated cheques issued on behalf of the company, retired from employment before the cheques were presented for encashment. The petitioner argued that he was not responsible for the company's affairs at the time of cheque return due to retirement. The petitioner's counsel highlighted official communications of retirement and appointment of alternate officer by the company. The petitioner's name was not reflected in the List of Signatories submitted by the complainant. The Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioner solely based on being an authorized signatory without considering the retirement status and lack of involvement in the company's affairs at the time of cheque return.Upon prima facie examination of the petition and annexed documents, the court issued notice to respondent No.1. The court emphasized the pre-conditions of section 138 of the NI Act, including the issuance of a written notice of demand for payment before an offence is deemed to be committed. Section 141 of the NI Act holds persons responsible for the conduct of the company liable for offences under section 138. However, being a signatory alone does not establish guilt under section 138; the offence is triggered upon the cheque's return unpaid. The court noted that the petitioner, having retired before the cheque presentation, could not have ensured sufficient funds in the company's account to honor the cheques.Consequently, the court stayed further proceedings concerning the petitioner in the criminal case until further orders. The case was re-notified for 29th March 2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
