Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
R. Baskar, Proprietor and Authorized Signatory, MSP Steel Agencies – Appellant
Versus
Rite Steel Industries Pvt Ltd., Rep, by Director Mr. P. Vaidyanathan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. convictions under section 138 of ni act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of business transactions leading to liability (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments concerning authorization and liability (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. respondent's rebuttal and confirmation of liability (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. authorization and liability under the cheque scenario (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 6. restoration of conviction and sentence based on statutory presumption. (Para 17) |
| 7. final judgment and directive for enforcement (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
(M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1447 of 2019 was convicted vide judgment, dated 12.12.2017 in S.T.C.No.13 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level at Tiruvallur (trial Court) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.8,64,506/- to the respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.A.No.19 of 2018 (lower appellate Court). The lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 13.09.2019 partly-allowed the appeal modi
Authorized signatories can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and valid authorization needs not be signed by all board members.
The authority of a firm's representative to file a complaint under Section 138 must be proved; failure to do so invalidates the conviction.
A complainant must prove the execution of a cheque by direct knowledge or witness testimony; reliance solely on records fails to establish the burden of proof.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Power of attorney holder with direct knowledge can testify; cheque endorsement for collection not transfer, upholding Section 138 NI Act prosecution.
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 accused may rebut statutory presumptions of liability in cheque dishonor cases; once done, burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the case effectively.
The accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failing....
Authorized signatory of company cheque from company account is not 'drawer' under Section 138 NI Act; company is drawer and must be impleaded with notice served; non-impleadment fatal, proceedings qu....
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
