SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1380

K.T.THOMAS, D.P.MOHAPATRA
Anil Hada – Appellant
Versus
Indian Acrylic LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Thomas, J. -Special leave granted.

2.When a company, which committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) eludes from being prosecuted thereof, can the Directors of that company be prosecuted for that offence? This is the nub of the issue mooted before us by one of the Directors of the Company. He approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana with the contention that prosecution in such a situation is not maintainable as against the directors. But a single judge of the High Court spurned down the contention by the judgment which is now being challenged in this appeal.

3. M/s Rama Fibres Ltd. is a public limited company of which the present appellant is one of the directors. five complaints were failed by another company (which is hereinafter referred to as the complainant ) before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class Chandigarh against M/s. Rama Fibres Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the accused company ) and 11 other persons who are shown as directors of the accused company. The complaints contained the allegations that cheques were issued on behalf of the accused company for the debts due to the compla




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top