TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R.S. Industry Vs. M/s Haryana Rice Mill & another, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent no.2 and accused/applicant had business transactions. Respondent no.2 alleged that he supplied cattle fodder to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- to the accused/appellant, who in turn supplied three cheques of which one was of Rs.10,00,000/- and other two cheques were of Rs.15,00,000/- each, in lieu of payment for the aforesaid amount. On presenting aforesaid cheques to the bank for payment, the cheques were dishonoured as the payment was stopped by the drawer. Thereafter respondent no.2 served a registered notice dated 13.02.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the ratio of all these judgments was that without taking cognizance against the firm, or company or director as the case may be, the cognizance order against the accused/partner would be illegal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that compliance under Section 141 of N.I. Act is only mandatory in cases of "Company" and a proprietary concern (different from partnership firm) stands absolutely on different footing. He further stated that applicants were although carrying the business in name of the firm of applicant no.1, but he being proprietor thereof would be solely responsible for conduct of its day to day affair. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Lakshminarayan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. So far as argument of learned counsel for the applicants regarding filing of single notice and complaint with regard to dishonor of three cheques is concerned the learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that there is no illegality in filing the single complaint on single notice of dishonor of three cheques. It will prevent the multiplicity of the case. He further argued that all three cheques were being issued by the same party i.e., the applicant and were payable to respondent no.2-complainant only and all three cheques were returned by Bank on 17.01.2019 with the note 'stop payment by drawer' and a single legal notice was sent on 13.02.2019, which was served upon the applicant on 20.02.2019, therefore, it was well w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a)"company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 10. Having considered the provision of Section 141 of N.I. Act, 1881, there is no m....