https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82860 This case pertains to the dishonor of cheques and the challenge to cognizance and summoning orders. The key points are: The cheques were signed and issued by respondent No. 3, Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, in his individual capacity, unconnected to the petitioners or the alleged business transaction between petitioner No. 1 (Bipin Lal Singh Pagar through his proprietorship firm) and respondent No. 2 (Tiger Logistics (India) Limited). The cheques were dishonored due to "Account Closed." Since petitioner No. 1 did not sign the cheques, he cannot be held liable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent No. 2's claim that the cheques were issued by respondent No. 3 on behalf of the petitioners may be grounds for a civil suit but not..... en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82860 This case pertains to the dishonor of cheques and the challenge to cognizance and summoning orders. The key points are: The cheques were signed and issued by respondent No. 3, Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, in his individual capacity, unconnected to the petitioners or the alleged business transaction between petitioner No. 1 (Bipin Lal Singh Pagar through his proprietorship firm) and respondent No. 2 (Tiger Logistics (India) Limited). The cheques were dishonored due to "Account Closed." Since petitioner No. 1 did not sign the cheques, he cannot be held liable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent No. 2's claim that the cheques were issued by respondent No. 3 on behalf of the petitioners may be grounds for a civil suit but not..... Highlights Indian Laws Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82860