Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Shalender Garhwal – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint bearing NACT No. 372 of 2020 dated 28.04.2020 titled as “Ramesh vs. Kewal Kamboj etc.” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, along with summoning order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the complaint in question has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent-complainant alleging that the accused persons, namely Shalender Garhwal (petitioner herein) and Kewal Kamboj, were associated with a company namely Paras Mega Mart Limited. It is alleged that accused No.2/petitioner was the Managing Director of the said company and accused No.1-Kewal Kamboj was its shareholder, and both the accused persons had obtained a loan amount from the complainant for investment in their company. In discharge of the said liability, a cheque bearing No. 000628 dated 30.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,27,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant. The
Vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the company to be named as an accused; absence of the company renders the complaint against the individual not maintai....
The company must be summoned as an accused in Section 138 N.I. Act cases for proceedings against its Directors to be valid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction when....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed by a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be in the name of the company and can be represented b....
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....
To uphold a prosecution for cheque dishonour, the company must be named as an accused along with the authorized signatory.
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
