2001 (10) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....involve the same issue between the same parties. 2. The respondent-complainant filed complaints against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of trial, on noticing the mis-description of the cause title in relation to the particulars of the complainant, the respondent-complainant filed petitions for amendment to rectify the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch is not a juridical person in the eye of law, the applications for amendment cannot be allowed to make the invalid complaints as valid complaints and further the said applications have been filed belatedly. 6. The trial court, after considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and on the strength of the decisions rendered in (1) U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery ,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is no dispute in the provisions of law that the proprietary concern is a non-entity. In the cause title in the complaints filed by the complainant, it is mentioned as M/s. Sri Durga Fashions, Tiruppur, represented by its proprietor P. Subramaniam. But, this would not mean that the complaints have been filed by a person, who has no juridical entity. 10. As admitted by learned counsel for the pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of non-entity filed the complaints. 13. Moreover, in the decision of this court in N. Vaidyanathan/Deepika Milk Marketing v. Dodla Dairy Ltd. [2000] 1 MWN (Crl.) (Mad) (DCC) 33, it is held that it is a settled position of law that the proprietorship concern by itself is not a legal entity, apart from its proprietor, the proprietary concern and the proprietor are one and the same person. It is f....