Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Raghu Lakshminarayan VS Fine Tubes...
Checking relevance for N. Rangachari VS Bharat Sanchar Nigam LTD. ...
2007 3 Supreme 626 : Under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when a company is the offender for an offence under Section 138, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business shall also be deemed guilty of the offence. The complaint filed under Section 138 can include directors or other officers of the company as parties, as an allegation that the named accused are directors of the company would usher in the element of their being in charge of and responsible for the company''''s affairs. The burden then shifts to such persons to prove they were not in charge at the time of the offence or that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. The court has held that contentions about a person no longer being a director or not being aware of the cheque issuance can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the trial, and such claims do not justify quashing the complaint. Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 can be amended to include a society (if it is a company) or its directors as parties, provided the allegations in the complaint establish their role in the company''''s affairs at the time of the offence.Checking relevance for Kusum Ingots And Alloys LTD. VS Pennar Peterson Securities LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Anil Hada VS Indian Acrylic LTD. ...
1999 9 Supreme 484 : Under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint filed under Section 138 can be amended to include a company (including a society) or its directors as parties, even if the company is not prosecuted. The prosecution of the company is not a sine qua non for prosecuting its directors. The legal fiction under Section 141 allows for the prosecution of persons falling within sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 141—namely, (1) the company which committed the offence, and (2) every person who was in charge of and responsible for the business of the company, or (3) any director, manager, secretary, or officer with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the offence was committed—even if the company is not prosecuted due to winding up proceedings or other legal impediments. The key principle is that the offence must have been committed by the company, but the absence of prosecution against the company does not bar proceedings against its directors or other responsible persons. Therefore, a complaint can be amended to include the society or its directors as parties, provided the underlying offence was committed by the company.Checking relevance for Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka VS Tourism Finance Corporation Of India Ltd...
Checking relevance for A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for M. M. T. C. LTD. VS Medchl Chemicals And Pharma Private LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Preesa Foods And Spices(India) Private Limited VS State Of Kerala...
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 786 : Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be amended to include a society or directors as parties if the company (or society) is not initially arraigned as an accused. According to the judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and Another [2019 (1) KHC 540], in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the director is not maintainable. Furthermore, when the drawer of the dishonoured cheque is a company, the statutory demand notice under Section 138 must be served on the company, and separate notice to directors is not mandatory. The court held that the opportunity to the company through notice is sufficient for those in charge of its affairs, and any defense regarding lack of knowledge or due diligence can be raised at the trial stage, not at the notice stage. Therefore, while a society or directors may be liable under Section 141 of the Act if the company is guilty, the complaint cannot be amended to include them unless the company is first properly arraigned as an accused.Checking relevance for Binu, S/o. Chandran VS State Of Kerala...
2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 503 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint cannot be amended to include a society or directors as parties after the initial filing if the original complaint does not specifically aver the liability of such parties. According to the judgment in Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 (7) KHC 377 : 2022 KHC OnLine 7209 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1598 : AIROnLine 2022 SC 904 : 2022 (6) KLT SN 39 : 2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1016], the Apex Court held that if the complainant fails to make specific averments against a company or its director in the complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 138, such omission cannot be rectified by invoking general principles of criminal jurisprudence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that where a cheque is issued by a firm, the firm must be arrayed as the principal offender, and the director/partner must be included as a secondary offender under principles of vicarious liability. The failure to do so renders the prosecution vitiated. This principle was reiterated in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan [2022 (6) KHC 215], where the Supreme Court held that the complainant must clearly allege the role of the director in charge of the firm’s business at the relevant time, and such allegations cannot be implied or added through amendment. Thus, an amendment to include the society or directors as parties is not permissible if the original complaint lacks specific averments regarding their liability.Checking relevance for Dinesh Hariram Valecha VS State of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Bijaya Manjari Satpathy VS State of Orissa...
2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 404 : Under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint under Section 138 cannot be maintainable if the company, firm, or other association of individuals (such as a society) is not arraigned as an accused. The court held that the trust (a society) must be impleaded as an accused to establish vicarious liability of its officers, such as the General Secretary or President. The court emphasized that specific averments are required to establish vicarious liability, and such liability arises only when the company or firm commits the offense as the primary offender. Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 cannot be amended to include the society or its directors as parties after the fact if the society was not originally included, as the complaint would be unsustainable in law. The judgment in Dillip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda (AIR 2022 SC 2258) and Aparna A. Saha v. Self Developers Pvt. Ltd (AIR 2013 SC 3210) were cited in support of this principle.
