Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Thawani, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.

Key Points:- The judgment holds that an authorised signatory of a company cannot be proceeded against under NI Act without arraigning the company as an accused. (!) - It states that for maintaining prosecution under Section 141, the company must be arraigned as an accused; other offenders can only be brought in under vicarious liability. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that notice of demand must be served on the company, and absence of such service invalidates the complaint against the individual signer where the cheque was issued by the company. (!) (!) - The record shows the cheque was issued by a director of Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., and the complaint was lodged only against the appellant without arraigning the company. (!) - The Court quashed the complaint due to lack of arraignment of the company and lack of compliance with the proviso to Section 138. (!) - The High Court’s approach allowing the company to be arraigned at a later stage was held erroneous. (!) - The appellant deposited the entire cheque amount pursuant to Court directions and the amount was ordered to be returned to the complainant. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies the procedural requirements under Section 138 for a complete offence: presentation within six months or validity period, notice of demand within 30 days of bank information, and failure to pay within 15 days of notice. (!)

What is the effect of arraigning a company as an accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint?What is the necessity of serving a notice of demand on the company when the cheque is issued by a director on behalf of the company?What is the consequence if the company is not arraigned as an accused in a Section 138 complaint and the complaint is only against the individual signer?