Skip to main content

Dishonour Of Cheque: Complaint Against Partnership Firm Not Maintainable Without Making The Firm An Accused

In CRL.O.P No.13147 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015, Rangabashyam vs Ramesh, the question before the Madras High Court involved in this case is whether an unregistered Partnership Firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in such cases whether the Partnership Firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?

The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque issued by the petitioners. The petitioners applied to quash the proceedings primarily on the ground that the cheque in question was drawn in favour of the respondent only on behalf of the partnership firm. Therefore, the complaint cannot be maintained without issuing the statutory notice to the partnership firm and making the partnership firm as an accused in the complaint.

Relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, 2012(5) SCC 661, the Madras High Court held that a partnership firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of the Act, and in such cases the firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The court also agreed with the contentions of the Petitioners with regard to Section 69(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal original petition.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more