Skip to main content

Not necessary to implead a Sole-proprietary concern for cheque bouncing

In Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court to set aside the summon issued by the Ld. Trial Court. It had been alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan and the cheques issued by the petitioner against the same had bounced/dishonoured due to insufficiency of   funds. The primary objection of the petitioner was that the complainant / respondent was wholly incompetent to lodge the prosecution as cheques were issued by the firm M/s Rashmi Arosole & Chemicals and petitioner is proprietor of this firm but the firm is not arraign as an accused.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court observed that a plain reading of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear, if the person committing the offence is a "company", in that event every natural person responsible for such commission as also the artificial person namely the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Also, certain other natural persons may be held guilty, if so proved. 
The Appellant Dhirendra Singh, is the proprietor of the firm namely M/S Rashmi Arosole & Chemical which is a sole proprietorship firm. Thus, the main question arises whether in sole proprietorship firm indictment of firm arraign as parties is necessary or not. 
The phrase "association of individuals" necessarily requires such entity to be constituted by two or more individuals i.e. natural persons. On the contrary a sole-proprietorship concern, by very description does not allow for ownership to be shared or be joint and it defines, restricts and dictates the ownership to remain with one person only. Thus, "associations of individuals" are absolutely opposed to sole-proprietorship concerns, in that sense and aspect. 
A 'partnership' on the other hand is a relationship formed between persons who willfully form such relationship with each other. Individually, in the context of that relationship, they are called 'partners' and collectively, they are called the 'firm', while the name in which they set up and conduct their business/activity (under such relationship), is called their 'firm name'. 
While a partnership results in the collective identity of a firm coming into existence, a proprietorship is nothing more than a cloak or a trade name acquired by an individual or a person for the purpose of conducting a particular activity. With or without such trade name, it (sole proprietary concern) remains identified to the individual who owns it. It does not bring to life any new or other legal identity or entity. No rights or liabilities arise or are incurred, by any person (whether natural or artificial), except that otherwise attach to the natural person who owns it. Thus it is only a 'concern' of the individual who owns it. The trade name remains the shadow of the natural person or a mere projection or an identity that springs from and vanishes with the individual. It has no independent existence or continuity. 
In the context of an offence under section 138 of the Act, by virtue of Explanation (b) to section 141 of the Act, only a partner of a 'firm' has been artificially equated to a 'director' of a 'company'. Its a legal fiction created in a penal statute. It must be confined to the limited to the purpose for which it has been created. Thus a partner of a 'firm' entails the same vicarious liability towards his 'firm' as 'director' does towards his 'company', though a partnership is not an artificial person. So also, upon being thus equated, the partnership 'firm' and its partner/s has/have to be impleaded as an accused person in any criminal complaint, that may be filed alleging offence committed by the firm. However, there is no indication in the statute to stretch that legal fiction to a sole proprietary concern. 
Besides, in the case of a sole proprietary concern, there are no two persons in existence. Therefore, no vicarious liability may ever arise on any other person. The identity of the sole proprietor and that of his 'concern' remain one, even though the sole proprietor may adopt a trade name different from his own, for such 'concern'. Thus, even otherwise, conceptually, the principle contained in section 141 of the Act is not applicable to a sole-proprietary concern. 
Accordingly, there is no defect in the complaint lodged against the applicant, in his capacity as the sole proprietor of the concern M/s Rashmi Arosole & Chemicals. There was no requirement to implead his sole proprietary concern as an accused person nor there was any need to additionally implead the applicant by his trade name. 
On perusal of the averment of the parties, it is crystal clear that petitioner taken the money in advance by way of loan and petitioner handed over the cheques bearing no. 850213 & 850214 amount of Rs. 50,000/- each only for the security for payment of money advance by way of loan. So the transaction of money and cheques not in the prosecution of business of firm but cheques handed over by petitioner to Nepal Singh in individual capacity. So due to aforesaid reason too no need to implead the sole proprietor firm by his firm name. 

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