IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Bhupinder Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Sohan Lal Mohan Lal & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-26809 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of cheque issuance and dishonour. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. summoning order details and background. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding the liability of the petitioner. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court analysis regarding documentary evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on the liability of directors. (Para 14) |
| 6. conclusion and directives for trial. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
CRM-40081-2023
The present application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for placing on record the Annual Report of the company dated 30.09.2015 as Annexure A-1.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the Annual Report of the company dated 30.09.2015 as Annexure A-1 is taken on record.
CRM-M-26809-2021
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.NACT/846/2018 dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 15.09.2018 under section 138 of the NI Act (Annexure P-3), the order dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application along with the revision petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that the complainant firm (M/s Sohan Lal Mohan Lal, Commission Agents, Talwandi Bhai Tehsil and District Ferozpur through its partner Sh.Vijay Kumar son of Mohan Lal) had been supplying paddy/basmati on credit to the accused firm of which accused No.1 (Bhupinder Kaur, Director of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot) and accused No.2 (Sukhveer Singh Samra, Director of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot) were the Directors and accused No.5 (Harinder Singh Samra, Authorised Signatory of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot) was an authorised signatory in the banks of the accused company. Over a period of time, an amount of Rs.58,08,350.95/- became due on the part of the accused Firm. In partial discharge of their liability, the accused issued a Cheque No.379539 dated 21.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-favouring the Complainant firm from their Company's Account No.0978002100359107 at the Punjab National Bank, Main Bazar Faridkot with the assurance that the said cheque would be honoured. However, the cheque in question was dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. A legal notice was sent to the accused making a demand of the payment of the cheque amount. However, no reply was furnished to the said legal notice.
3. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be instituted at the instance of the complainant No.1/respondent No.1-firm M/s Sohan Lal Mohan Lal, Commission Agents, Talwandi through its partner Vijay Kumar (complainant No.2/respondent No.2) against Bhupinder Kaur, Director of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Sukhveer Singh Samra, Director of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its Director Bhupinder Kaur, Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its Director Sukhveer Singh Samra and Harinder Singh Samra, Authorised Signatory of Golden Agrarian Pvt. Ltd. Sadik Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot. The copy of the complaint dated 16.07.2018 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
4. Based on the aforementioned complaint dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), the summoning order was passed on 15.09.2018 under section 138 of the NI Act. A copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P- 3 to the petition.
5. Against the aforementioned summoning order, a revision petition was preferred which came to be dismissed. A copy of th
Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. v. Wipro Finance Ltd.
A director who resigns before the cheque issuance cannot be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act, evidenced by credible documents demonstrating resignation.
A director who resigns before a cheque is issued cannot be held liable for its dishonour, supported by public documents proving resignation.
Directors who have resigned cannot be held liable for cheques issued after their resignation unless specific allegations of responsibility are made.
Sufficient averments in a complaint against a director fulfill requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act for vicarious liability. Failure to respond to statutory notices under Section 138 infers liab....
A director cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's actions after resignation unless specific allegations of involvement are made in the complaint.
Specific averments are necessary to establish the liability of a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; mere designation is insufficient.
An individual in a company cannot be vicariously liable for criminal offenses under the NI Act unless they are responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.