Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
Sanjay Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. setting aside of metropolitan magistrate's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments against the summons. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. description of the complaint and parties involved. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. responsibility of company executives under section 138. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 5. principles of vicarious liability in company law. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. conclusion and disposal of the petition. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--By this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 10th May 2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, N.I.Act, Tis Hazari Courts summoning the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the N.I.Act).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cheque which got dishonoured was issued by the accused No. 1 company namely KRF Ltd. of which the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were the Director and Managing Director respectively. Without any averment in the complaint against the petitioner who was employed as the `Finance Head' of the company, the petitioner was impleaded as accused No. 4 and summoned by the impugned order by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. Learn
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
