Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained against a private limited company and its directors when the cheque was issued by a partnership firm, the firm was not arraigned as an accused, and no statutory notice was issued to the firm.
Analysis: Liability under Section 138 arises only against the drawer of the dishonoured cheque after service of the mandatory statutory notice. Where the cheque is issued by a partnership firm, notice must be addressed to the firm as the drawer and, where Section 141 is invoked, the persons sought to be proceeded against must be connected with that drawer entity in the manner recognised by law. A company is a distinct legal entity from a partnership firm, and the mere fact that one individual is both a partner of the firm and a director of the company does not permit fastening criminal liability on the company for a cheque issued by the firm. In the absence of notice to the firm, the complaint could not be sustained against the company or its directors.
Conclusion: The order issuing process was rightly held unsustainable, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, prosecution must be founded on notice to and arraignment of the actual drawer of the cheque, and criminal liability cannot be transferred to a distinct legal entity that was not the drawer.