Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla...
2001 1 Supreme 24 : Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, served in the name of the director of a company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, is considered proper notice. Therefore, the prosecution proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that notice was not served on the company. The notice need not be issued to the company itself if it is served on the director who signed the cheque, as long as the substance of the matter is considered and the notice is effectively communicated to the responsible person acting on behalf of the company.Checking relevance for Gunmala Sales Private VS Anu Mehta...
Checking relevance for Sunita Palita VS Panchami Stone Quarry...
Checking relevance for Nag Leathers Pvt. Ltd. VS Dynamic Marketing Partnership, Rep. By Its Partners...
Checking relevance for Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya VS Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Bijoy Kumar Moni VS Paresh Manna...
Checking relevance for G. K. Akshata, W/o Dr. K. J. Rudradev VS V. Raghavendra...
2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 545 : Under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a partnership firm is treated on equal footing with a company, and the explanation to Section 141 explicitly states that ''''company'''' includes a firm or other association of individuals. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Aneeta Hada''''s case (a Constitutional Bench decision), held that a company must be arraigned as an accused, and arraigning directors or partners alone is not sufficient. This principle applies equally to partnership firms. Therefore, in proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, a separate notice must be issued to the partnership firm itself, and issuance of notice only to a partner—whether managing or otherwise—does not constitute valid notice to the firm. Consequently, no criminal proceedings under Section 138 or 141 can be maintainable without a statutory notice being issued to the firm. This means that no statutory notice to a director (or partner) of the accused firm alone is sufficient; the firm must be separately notified.Checking relevance for G. K. Akshata VS V. Raghavendra...
Checking relevance for Preesa Foods And Spices(India) Private Limited VS State Of Kerala...
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 786 : In cases where the drawer of a dishonoured cheque is a company, statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be issued to the company, but separate individual notices to the directors or officials of the company are not mandatory. This principle is supported by multiple precedents, including Balachandran v. State of Kerala, Krishna Texport & Capital Markets Ltd. v. Ila A. Agrawal, and Target Overseas Exports (P) Ltd. v. Iqbal, which hold that directors who are in charge of the company''''s affairs are deemed to be aware of the notice issued to the company, and thus do not require separate notice under Section 138. Furthermore, the prosecution of directors under Section 141 of the Act is based on their role in the company''''s conduct, not on their receipt of a separate notice. Therefore, no statutory notice is required to be issued to the director of an accused company in a matter under Section 138 or Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Checking relevance for Abdul Latif Saiyed vs Bhagwati Construction...
Checking relevance for Nava Education Trust Thro Shambhubhai Valjibhai Patel VS Prakashbhai Dhulabhai Patel...
Checking relevance for Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla...
Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - Dishonour Of Cheque (2001)
: Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, served in the name of the director of a company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, is considered proper notice. Therefore, the prosecution proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the notice was not served on the company itself. The notice need not be issued strictly to the company; it is sufficient if served on the director who signed the cheque, as long as the substance of the matter is examined and the notice is effectively communicated to the responsible party. This interpretation avoids a narrow technical reading and upholds the intent of the statutory requirement.Checking relevance for Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund...Checking relevance for KIRSHNA TEXPORT & CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. VS ILA A. AGRAWAL...
2015 4 Supreme 458 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, notice of dishonour of a cheque must be issued only to the drawer of the cheque and not to any other person, including directors of a company. Section 141, which deals with vicarious liability of persons responsible for the affairs of a company, does not require separate notices to individual directors. It is sufficient to serve notice on the company. The court has held that individual notices to directors cannot be read into Section 138, and therefore, no statutory notice is required to be issued to the directors of an accused company in a matter under Section 138 or Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
