https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325197 The court held that for maintaining prosecution under Section 141 of the NI Act against a partner, arraigning the partnership firm as an accused is necessary. Prosecution against only one partner, without involving the partnership firm, is not maintainable. The process issued against the petitioner was quashed, allowing the respondent to seek appropriate relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. All four writ petitions were allowed, and the process against the petitioner alone was set aside. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Mar 2016 21:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325197 The court held that for maintaining prosecution under Section 141 of the NI Act against a partner, arraigning the partnership firm as an accused is necessary. Prosecution against only one partner, without involving the partnership firm, is not maintainable. The process issued against the petitioner was quashed, allowing the respondent to seek appropriate relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. All four writ petitions were allowed, and the process against the petitioner alone was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325197