PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) AT the outset I may note that learned counsel for the petitioners has. drawn out the memorandum of parties in a most unsatisfactory manner. The memo of parties states that 6 petitioners have joined in a common action to challenge the summoning order dated 18. 5. 2002. But, in the preamble to the petition and the prayer made it is stated that only petitioners No. l, 4 and 5 are approaching the Court praying that the summoning order be quashed vis-a-vis said petitioners.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners who is a senior member of the Bar is expected to be more vigilant while drafting petitions.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 impleading 6 respondents as accused. The same are as under:-

"1. M/s. T. Azeezur Rehman and Co. , 12, Karpura, Mudoli Street, Periamet, Madrass. 2. Shri A. Niaz Ahmed. 3. Shri T. Abdul Jabbar. 4. Shri T. Azeezur Rehman. 5. Shri T. Habeebur Rehman. 6. Shri A. Faiyaz Ahmed. All residents of 12, Karpura Mudoli Street, Periament, Madrass. "

( 4 ) NECESSARY averment against the accused persons made in the complainant are that accused No. 1 is a partnership firm and accused No. 2 to 6 are its partners. That accused No. 2, as partner of accused No. 1 issued a cheque in sum of Rs. 5 lacs from an account maintained by the branch of accused No. 1 called Nadira Leather Co. , Madras. It was stated that accused no. 1 owed Rs. 90 lacs to the complainant and Rs. 5 lacs was paid to liquidate part liability.

( 5 ) ALLEGING that the cheque was dishonoured and notice of dishonour was served upon the accused, prayer made was to take action against the accused persons as per law.

( 6 ) LEARNED Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons for appearance of the accused persons.

( 7 ) A two fold submission was urged by learned for petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 at the hearing held on 6. 8. 2007.

( 8 ) IT was firstly urged that the cheque in question which formed the foundation of the complaint as per the complaint was issued by accused No. 2 and was admittedly drawn from an account in the name of Nadira Leather co. Madras. Thus, it was urged that neither petitioner No. l nor petitioner no. 4 nor petitioner No. 5 could be made liable on account of the said cheque not being cleared for payment by the banker on whom the cheque was drawn as they had no concern with the cheque.

( 9 ) THE second contention urged was that there are no averments in the complaint that petitioners No. 4 and 5 were the persons in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of respondent No. 1. Thus, qua said petitioners, it was urged that the summoning order requires to be quashed.

( 10 ) THE first submission made by learned counsel for petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 appears to be very attractive at the first blush. But, a little probe reveals that learned counsel for said petitioners is attempting to raise a castle of sand without any foundation.

( 11 ) PERTAINING to the cheque in question, in para 4 of the complaint it has been specifically pleaded that accused No. 2 signed the cheque on an account maintained with Allahabad Bank by the branch of accused No. 1 at madras carrying on business in the name Nadira Leather Co.

( 12 ) THERE is no prohibition in law for a partnership firm to carry on business under any name and style. The fact that normally a partnership firm carries on business under its own name and style does not mean that a partnership firm cannot adopt any other trade name or trading style.

( 13 ) INDEED, in the instant case the 5 partners of accused No. 1 after drawing up an agreement to carry on business as partners with effect from 1. 11. 1975 appended a codicil to the partnership deed recording as under:-

"the Partners of the firm have started a Branch in 59, Perianna maistry Street, Madras-3 in the name of Nadira Leather Co. and a tannery in Thuthipet from April 1976 and the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document