Back
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Madhusudhan Garai – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
1. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing the impugned proceeding being CS No. 29044 of 2019, initiated under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) which is presently pending before judicial Magistrate 18th Court Calcutta.
2. The petitioners are the partners of the partnership firm namely M/s Madhusuhdan Garai, who entered into a dealership agreement with Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Aforesaid firm proposed for financial assistance to the opposite party No. 2, who sanctioned Rs. 6.50 Crores on the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanctioned letter dated 24.09.2018.
3. Petitioners further contention is that some dispute and differences arose between said firm and Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and for which business of the petitioners firm were badly hampered and the petitioners suffered huge loss and damages. In the said backdrop, the said firm requested opposite party no. 2 to restructure the loan limit by reducing it from Rs. 6.50 to 3.25 crores and to convert the balance 3.25 crores into a term loan for the period of three years, which was not accepted by the opposite party no. 2/bank and
The court affirmed that partners can be held vicariously liable for a cheque issued by the firm if sufficient averments are made in the complaint, regardless of claims of being sleeping partners.
The court upheld the validity of a dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, allowing simultaneous proceedings under the N.I. Act and SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the distinct purposes of eac....
A person who is not a signatory to the cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the offence of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds.
The dishonour of cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt must be proved, and the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act can only be rebutted with strong evidence.
Presumption against the drawer of the cheque, dishonour of cheques due to closure of the account, and the petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption.
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....
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
