Skip to main content

Sec.138 NI Act - Complaint Not Maintainable Against Trustees For Dishonour Of Cheque

In Crl. M. C. No. 3799, 3801, 3804, 3827, 3832, 3843, 3844, 3847, 3852 of 2018, in the appeal before the Kerala High Court, the petitioners, who were the trustees of a trust along with the trust, were arraigned as the accused persons in a complaint filed by a person before the Magistrate Court for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the complaint filed against them.

The primary question before the High Court was whether a trust and its trustees fall within the definition of 'company' under the explanation to section 141.

As per the definition of 'company' under explanation to section 141, "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. Therefore, in order to answer whether section 141 can be invoked in case of a trust and its trustees, it became necessary for the Court to find out whether a trust means a 'body corporate', 'a firm' or an 'association of individuals'. The findings of the Court are given below.

The Court observed that as per S.3 of the Trusts Act, a "Trust" is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner. Looking into the definition of trust and other provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, Court observed that 'Trust' is not capable of suing and being sued in a court of law, even though the trustees can maintain and defend suits for the preservation and protection of the trust property. Hence the Court held that a "'Trust' is not like a juristic person or a legal entity, as a juristic person has a legal existence of its own and hence it is capable of suing and being sued in a court of law. Hence a 'Trust' is not like a body corporate, which has a legal existence of its own and therefore can appoint an agent.

The Court categorically observed that a trust is not a firm.

On going through various precedents, Court observed that an association of persons/ body of individuals are a combination of persons coming together for a common action with a common understanding and a purpose to achieve some common benefit. As trustees are not beneficiaries and not have any common benefit, court held that trustees are not association of persons/ body of individuals. Further, Court also relied on the ratio in Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. v. Manager, Canara Bank & Ors (2017 (3) SCC 712) where it was held that Trust is not a 'person' as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 based on the reasoning that Trust is not an 'association of persons'.

Thus, the Court concluded that as a trust is not a body corporate or association or individuals and that it does not fall within the meaning of 'company' under section 141 of the NI Act, no prosecution is possible against the petitioner trust and trustees invoking section 141 and quashed the complaint invoking powers under section 482 of CrPC.

Article referred: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sec138-ni-act-complaint-not-maintainable-against-trustees-for-dishonour-of-cheque-kerala-hc-145533

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more