Back
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
G. K. Akshata – Appellant
Versus
V. Raghavendra – Respondent
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Table of Contents
A. Background
B. Submissions of Petitioners
C. Submissions of Respondent
D. Points For Consideration
E. Whether the Sessions Court could exercise review powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in respect of order passed under Section 251 of Cr.P.C?
F. Whether an application under Section 251 of Cr.P.C could also be treated as one of discharge in a summons case?
G. Whether without issuance of notice to a partnership firm, whether registered or unregistered, criminal proceedings under Section 138 could be filed or would it be barred under Section 141 of the N.I. Act?
H. Whether issuance of a notice to one of the partners would amount to service of a valid notice on the firm?
I. Whether separate notices or a single notice with separate demarcation of the firm and the partners is required under Section 138 of the N.I. Act leading to a presumption under Section 141 of N.I. Act?
J. In the event of the partnership firm or the partner not being arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, can an application be filed by the applicant to arraign them as party-accused by way of either amendment or by way of an applicat
A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if the partnership firm is not made a party, as individual partners cannot be liable without arraigning the firm as a principal ac....
Criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act require the partnership firm to be arraigned as an accused; failure to do so renders the proceedings against individual partners not maintainabl....
Prosecution against a partner of a partnership firm under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not maintainable without including the firm as an accused, affirming the principle of vicarious liability.
Partners of a firm are jointly and severally liable for cheque dishonor under the Negotiable Instruments Act, irrespective of whether a partner has formally resigned, as long as they were part of the....
There is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments to establish vicarious liability of partners in a partnership firm under Section 138 of the NI Act and the n....
A partnership firm cannot be individually liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without including all partners in the complaint; liability is joint and several.
Clear and specific averments are necessary in criminal complaints under N.I. Act to hold individuals vicariously liable; mere association with a firm or vague allegations are insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
