Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
K. Ramachandran, S/o. Narayanan Nambiar – Appellant
Versus
Gopi, S/o. Kelu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the trial court's findings were justified. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 2. the cheque liability relates to the firm, not an individual. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
(A. BADHARUDEEN, J.)
Being aggrieved by the judgment in C.C.No.706/2005 dated 04.04.2007 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Perintalmanna, the complainant has come up in appeal arraying the accused as the 1st respondent and State of Kerala as the 2nd respondent.
2. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to as `complainant’ and `accused’ with reference to their status before the trial court, hereafter.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.
4. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.
5. Short facts:
The complainant Mr.K.Ramachandran filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class pursuant to dishonour of a cheque dated 20.06.1997 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Manjeri Branch, for Rs.65,000/- issued in favour of Kerala Roadways Ltd., by the accused. The trial court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `N.I Act’ her
A manager cannot sue in individual capacity for a cheque issued to a firm; only the firm may sue.
Only the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint for dishonoured cheques; an individual may not sue in their personal capacity for debts owed to a firm.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proprietor or partner of a firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in his own name as a holder in due course of th....
A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act must be filed in the name of the corporate entity, and valid statutory notice of dishonour is a prerequisite for prosecution.
A third party does not have the locus standi to prosecute the drawer of a cheque for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless they are the payee or the holder in due cou....
A cheque issued by a Firm does not implicate the proprietor unless the Firm is named in the complaint, requiring clear averments regarding sole proprietorship for liability under Section 138.
A cheque issued by a Firm does not implicate the proprietor unless the Firm is named as an accused; absence of sole proprietorship averment in the complaint is fatal.
Punishment under Section 138 of Act is not a means of seeking retribution but a means to ensure payment of money.
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
