Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Smt. Alka Ramola & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s United Spirits Limited Through Authorized Representative – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 3787 of 2023
Decided On : 23-05-2023
Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. (Oral)
Partnership deed and specific allegations against partners can override claims of being sleeping partners.
Headnote:
Sleeping Partners - Criminal Revision - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [2004) 7 SCC 15, (2005) 8 SCC 89, 2021 AIR SC 4587, 2019 (262) DLT 304] - The court discussed the impugned summoning order and the order passed in Criminal Revision No.467/2022, and upheld the orders based on the partnership deed and specific allegations against the petitioners. The court found no infirmity in the orders and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside impugned summoning order and order passed in Criminal Revision No.467/2022. The petitioners claimed to be sleeping partners of the partnership firm and not responsible for its day-to-day affairs.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned orders, citing specific allegations against the petitioners and the partnership deed that contradicted their claim of being sleeping partners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, claiming to be sleeping partners, could be held responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the partnership deed and specific allegations against the petitioners contradicted their claim of being sleeping partners, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
JUDGMENT
CRL.M.A. 14238/2023
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3787/2023 AND CRL.M.A. 14237/2023
3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for setting aside impugned summoning order dated 26.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 20314/2019 by ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South West, Dwarka Court and setting aside impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.467/2022 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that present petitioners were sleeping partners of the partnership firm and were not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Harsh Associates. It is further submitted by him that the present petitioners have not signed the cheque in question and only the Managing Partners i.e. Shri Basant Singh Kumain and Shri Santosh Singh Kumain were empowered to sign the cheque. It is further submitted that there are no specific averments against the present petitioners that they were in charge of and responsible to the firm for conduct of its business.
5. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and another versus State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 7 SCC 15; SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Neeya Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89; Ravindranatha Bajpe versus Mangalore BEZ & others, 2021 AIR SC 4587; Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. versus MGR Enterprises, 2019 (262) DLT 304.
6. In the instant case, for adequate conclusion it is necessary to look into the impugned order dated 16.03.2023. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 reads as follows:
"13. Further, in the present case, the main ground for challenging the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court is that all the revisionists/accused persons were the sleeping, partners in the accused partnership partnership firm and that they were not responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused partnership firm. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist/accused persons that they have not signed the cheque in question and that only the Managing Partner i.e. accused Basant Singh and Santosh Singh were empowered to sign the cheque. However, perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the respondent/complainant has relied upon a Partnership Deed dated 01.06.2017, wherein the names of all the revisionists/accused persons have been mentioned as the partners of accused No.1 M/s Harsh Associates.
14. It is nowhere mentioned in the said Partnership Deed found available on Trial Court Record that the revisionists/accused persons are sleeping partners in the aforesaid firm. Further, the profit & loss sharing ratio amongst the partners, who are revisionists in the present petition can also be easily seen in Clause 8 of the said Partnership Deed, which also confirms the fact that all of them are working partners in the said firm. Perusal of the Trial Court Record also confirms the fact that Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant has rightly submitted before this Court that revisionists/accused persons No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were the liquor licence holders through which the said firm used to procure liquor from the respondent/complainant. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for revisionists/accused persons that the revisionists/accused persons are sleeping partners and they cannot be held liable for the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm, is not maintainable.
15. No illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court. It is found to be detailed, well reasoned and legally sound decision."
7. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 reveals that the learned Sessions Court has dealt with every contention and grievance of the present petitioners in great detail. It is also pertinent
