Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Petition Granted: Proceedings Quashed for Non-Inclusion of Company in Cheque Bounce Case Under Negotiable Instruments Act.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The case involves a petition to quash proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to failure to implead the company as an accused. The petitioner, a Managing Director, was accused of issuing a cheque on behalf of the company. The court found non-maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner as the company was not made an accused despite the cheque being issued on its behalf. Citing the Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy case, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of impleading the company in cases involving cheques issued on its behalf. Following the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in expeditious trial of cases, the High Court held that, it is clear that Section 202(2) CrPC is not applicable in the present proceedings which is u/s 138 N.I. Act.....