SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Gau) 746

C.R.SARMA
Dabasree Das Baishnab – Appellant
Versus
FI Multimedia Consultants – Respondent


JUDGMENT

C.R. Sarma, J.

1. The limited question involved in this set of revision petitions is, whether in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'Partnership Act'), an unregistered firm can prosecute, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') a drawer of a cheque issued against a liability and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds by the drawer's Bank.

2. As the said criminal revision petitions relate to the same parties, involving the similar question of law and facts, for the sake of convenience and brevity and as agreed to by the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned revision petitions by this common judgment and order.

3. I have heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner as well as Mr. P. Rathore, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. At the outset, let me set out the facts, in a nutshell, leading to the filing of the petitions aforesaid.

The respondent-complainant, an unregistered firm, as it then was, used




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top