AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds that M/s "Ambika Builders" is having eight partners, who had purchased land vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.2019 from the complainant of Criminal Case No.31809 of 2019 and one Vijaybhai Ishwarbhai Patel. Cheques were drawn by the "Ambika Builders" on the Bank a/c maintained by the firm. It was assured that undisputed possession of the land with clear title would be handed over and therefore, part payment was done. However, as a dispute arose regarding the title and possession of land, the payment of cheques was instructed to be stopped by "Ambika Builders". 1.1. It is stated that two cheques bearing Nos. 254174 and 724369 dated 01.08.2019 of State Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Anil Vasudev Rajgor vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2017 (3) GLH 802] and in the case of Sharma Pramod Narayanprasad vs. State of Gujarat, in Criminal Revision Application No.529 of 2014 dated 11.04.2018. 4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. P.B. Shah for respondent No.2 by relying on the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, submitted that a notice to the authorized Partner of the firm, is deemed to be a notice to the firm itself and that every partner is jointly & severally liable for all acts of the firm done while he is a Partner . 4.1. Mr. Shah further stated that partnership firm is not a separate legal entity and therefore, liability of partner is joint and several. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01489. (2) Bsi Limited Versus Gift Holdings Private Limited reported in 2000 (0) AIJEL 4197. (3) Smt. Rani Kapoor vs. M/S Silvermount in CRL.M.C. 3474/2016 & Crl.M.A. 14666/2016 (stay) dated 7th July, 2017. (4) M/S Balaji Diesel vs. Dalton Ceramic Industries in Crl.A.No. 1139 of 2002 dated 31.08.2008. (5) Madan Mohan Upadhya And Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 (35) BLJR 305. 4.3. Mr. Shah further stated that the cause title of the complaint reflects that the petitioner is shown as the authorized Partner of "Ambika Builders"- partnership firm and therefore, it cannot be said that the partnership firm has not been made party to the proceedings. 5. Undisputed facts are that the cheques were is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ership Act and therefore, the person in-charge of the offence of the firm would be arraigned as an accused without arraigning the partnership firm in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He states that the partners are not vicariously liable to the firm, by going through the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of the Partnership Act, Mr. Shah tried to project that the liability of the firm and the partners are co-extensive and therefore, stated that even though there is provision of including the firm in the definition of Company under the N.I. Act, concept of vicarious liability would not be made applicable to the partnership firm since is not a legal entity. 8. In the case of Anneta Hada (supra), it has been held as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imputed to the body corporate. Section 141 of the Act clearly stipulates that when a person which is a company commits an offence, then certain categories of persons in charge as well as the company would be deemed to be liable for the offences under Section 138. Thus, the statutory intendment is absolutely plain. The provision makes the functionaries and the companies to be liable and that is by deeming fiction. A deeming fiction has its own signification. 9. In the case of K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora & Anr. reported in 2009 (10) SCC 48, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "20. The position under section 141 of the Act can be summarized thus : (i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able under section 141(2) by making necessary averments relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section. (iv)Other Officers of a company can not be made liable under sub-section (1) of section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under sub-section (2) of Section 141, be averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or negligence." 10. Thus the deeming provision under Section 141 of the Act applies to the Company and person responsible for the acts of the Company. Section 141 clarifies that the company would mean any body corporate....