Skip to main content

Notice to directors in cheque bounce cases not mandatory

Directors of companies and partners of firms have been fastened with stricter onus by the Supreme Court in cheque bouncing cases. It ruled last week that notice of dishonour of cheques to the company is sufficient, and there is no need to serve separate notices on the directors. The directors are supposed to know about the dishonour when the company gets the notice. There is sufficient time, nearly 75 days, to find which directors are responsible for the fault and therefore, there is no need to prolong the process by serving notices on each director or partner. The Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court which had maintained that separate notices were essential. Allowing the appeal case, Kirshna Texport & Capital Markets Ltd vs Ila Agrawal, the court asked the high court to reconsider its view regarding the trial of two directors. Analysing Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court said: "There is nothing in Section 138 which may even remotely suggest issuance of notice to anyone other than the drawer (the company)… Section 141 again does not lay down any requirement that the directors must individually be issued separate notices. The persons running the affairs must naturally be aware of the notice issued to such company. It is precisely for this reason that no notice is additionally contemplated to be given to such directors."

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/no-notice-to-directors-in-cheque-bounce-cases-115051000672_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more