https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295588 Notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of a firm operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, absent any plea of fraud, so the petitioners could not avoid Section 138 NI Act proceedings on a purely technical objection that they were not personally served. The Court found the firm had already received notice through a partner, the dishonour of cheques was undisputed, and the summoning order disclosed no infirmity. In these circumstances, exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted to quash the prosecution or prevent abuse of process, and the quashing petition failed. en-us Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:11:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295588 Notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of a firm operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, absent any plea of fraud, so the petitioners could not avoid Section 138 NI Act proceedings on a purely technical objection that they were not personally served. The Court found the firm had already received notice through a partner, the dishonour of cheques was undisputed, and the summoning order disclosed no infirmity. In these circumstances, exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted to quash the prosecution or prevent abuse of process, and the quashing petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295588