Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Manila Kundara – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Goyal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details of the case and convictions (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding locus standi and evidence credibility (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. discussion on locus standi and legal principles of proprietorship (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. existence of evidence for cheque dishonor and rebuttal of defenses (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. final ruling against petitions and dismissal (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of both the captioned petitions, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances.
2. The petitioners herein have assailed their convictions for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter "NI Act"], in CT Case No. 1523/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Deepali Kundra & Ors.) and CT Case No. 1626/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Manila Kundra & Ors.).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent and the accused persons/petitioners shared prior business relations, pursuant to which the petitioners herein had purchased jewellery articles from the complainant in June 2014, for a total value exceeding Rs. 39 lakhs. It is alleged by t
The complainant, as a sole proprietor, had the standing to file under Section 138 of the NI Act, as ownership and liabilities of a sole proprietorship are inseparable.
In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut presumption of debt with evidence, rejecting unsupported secu....
The proprietor of a sole proprietorship holding liability for a dishonored cheque under Section 138 NI Act does not require the business entity to be arrayed as an accused.
Cheques issued under Section 138 of the NI Act create a presumption of legally enforceable liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
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.
A complainant must demonstrate ownership as the payee or holder in due course to maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act; failure to establish this results in dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of a company and its director under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is contingent on the relationship betwee....
Point of Law : Dishonoured of Cheque - Quash of Complaint - Offences committed by companies - Cheque has not been signed by petitioner and cheque has been issued with regard to business concern that ....
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
