B.R.GAVAI
Parag Bhikhalal Tejani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Heard by consent of parties.
2. The respondent No.2- complainant is common in all these cases. In Writ Petition Nos.1342/2010 to 1348/2010, the complaint has been filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“N.I.Act” for short) against M/s.Elite International Pvt.Ltd. of which the present petitioner is Director, and as such arrayed as accused in the complaint.
3. In Writ Petition No.2033/2010 with Writ Petition Nos.2035 to 2041/2010 the complaint has been filed by the complainant against M/s.Vedic Cotton Limited. It is the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner herein is a Director of accused No.1. However, it is disputed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner had resigned on 11th September 2008. However, in view of the view that I am taking in the present matter, I do not find it necessary to go into that controversy.
4. The basic contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are sought to be implicated in the complaint by invoking provision of vicarious liability under section 141 of the N.I.Act. It is contended that the averments necessar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.