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

2025 Supreme(All) 3595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Brij Raj Singh, J.
Sonali Verma And Another – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others- Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 8942 of 2025, Application U/s 482 No. 8902 of 2025:
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Abhineet Jaiswal
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Abhinav Kumar Mathur, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Ram Kumar Verma

Partners in a partnership firm are jointly and severally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques, and mere designation does not incur liability without stated managerial involvement.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 141 - Criminal proceedings under Section 138 for dishonoured cheques, summoning orders challenged by partners - Essential averments for vicarious liability required against partners as per Section 141 - Mere partnership does not entail automatic liability without specific allegations regarding managerial involvement. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 22, 25)

(B) Partnership Law - Distinction between company and partnership - Partners are jointly and severally liable for acts of the firm as per Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and cannot escape liability due to the partnership nature. (Paras 9.6, 9.8, 25)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, as sleeping partners in a firm, contest liability for cheques issued by their husband managing the partnership, arguing absence of knowledge and involvement in day-to-day affairs. The complaints wrongly array them as accused without requisite allegations of involvement.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the summoning orders against the applicants based on legal principles governing partnership liability and the nature of vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants, being sleeping partners without managerial role, can be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 and the adequacy of the averments in the complaints.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that in partnership firms, vicarious liability is distinctly governed by the partnership structure where all partners are jointly responsible; vicarious liability akin to corporate directors is not applicable. Mere designation does not imply automatic liability unless clearly stipulated within the complaint.

Result: Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of criminal complaints based on section 138. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against vicarious liability under section 141. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. joint liability of partners in a partnership firm. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court's support for oppositional arguments. (Para 12 , 13)
5. importance of specific averments in complaints. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. distinction between liability of directors and partners. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. legal recognition of partnership and partners’ liability. (Para 24 , 25)
8. conclusion on rejection of applications. (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Both applications have been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case Nos.925 of 2022 and 926 of 2022, M/s Kalpana Industries Vs. M/s K.D. Overseas and others, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act, 1881’) as well as the summoning orders dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Unnao.

2. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the applications, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.

3. Brief facts of the case, in nut shell, are that applicants had entered into a partnership deed dated 01.05.2016 for carrying on business under the name and style of “M/s K.D. Overseas” situated at Neelu Kheri, District Karnal, Haryana. The object of the partnership was to engage in the business of growing, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, trading, processing, purifying, renting, purchasing, selling, blending, importing, exporting, rendering marketable and transportable (whether in bulk, packed or concentrated form) various agricultural and allied products, including rice, wheat, gram, maize, other grains and cereals, pulses, spices, oils, oil seeds, flour, besan, daliya, maida, suji and related commodities. The applicants are sleeping partners of the partnership firm M/s K.D. Overseas having no role whatsoever in its management of day- to-day affairs. Both the applicants being ladies, engaged primarily in domestic and personal responsibilities, mutually resolved to appoint Mr. Sahil Verma, who is the husband of applicant no.1 and son of applicant no.2 to manage and take charge of daily business and operational affairs of the firm including execution of sale deeds, transfer deeds, lease deeds and other related documents, as well as to conduct all banking and financial transactions on behalf of the firm. Accordingly, the applicants executed a registered power of attorney bearing Certificate No.M0292017111, G.R.N. No.30696682 dated 29.09.2017 in favour of Mr. Sahil Verma, thereby authorising him to take charge and exercise all necessary powers for the smooth conduct and management of the firm’s day-to-day affairs.

4. It is stated that Criminal Complaint Case No.926 of 2022 has been filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act, 1881 and the applicants have been arrayed as accused nos.4 and 5, while Mr. Sahil Verma who is in-charge and managing affairs of the aforesaid partnership firm M/s K.D. overseas and had issued cheques in question in favour of opposite party no.2, had been arrayed as accused no.3. The aforesaid partnership firm M/s K.D. Overseas and the manager/competent officer of the same had been arrayed as accused nos.1 and 2 respectively. Similarly, other Complaint Case No.925 of 2022, M/s Kalpana Industries and another Vs. M/s K.D. Oversea and others, was also filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3 pertaining to different cheques number amounting to Rs.45,00,000/-.

5. Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants had long back executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 29.09.2017 in favour of Sahil Verma authorising him as in-charge and to exclusively manage, operate and conduct all business, financial and administrative activities of the aforesaid firm, including the operation

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 Back to top