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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 1279

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Ashok Muthanna and Others – Appellant
Versus
Wipro Finance Limited – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, S. Venkatesan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

Wipro Finance Limited, Chennai, filed two complaints against Fidelity Industries Ltd., Chennai, and its directors and authorised signatory arraying them as A-1 to A-6 for the offences under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

On receipt of summons petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 who are accused Nos. 2 to 5 have filed these two petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the entire proceedings in those two complaints, on the following grounds :

(i) V. G. Subbaraman, the second petitioner (A-3), retired on March 28, 1998, itself, as evidenced by Form No. 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies. Hence, he is not responsible for the issuance of the cheque on January 23, 1999, and the non-payment of the cheque amount after its dishonour and as such, the proceedings under section 138 of the Act are not valid in law in so far as he is concerned.

(ii) Though in the complaint, there is allegation against the petitioners that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company (A-1) no overt act or specific allegation has been attributed to those petitioners. The cheque has bee







































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