Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Liability of Partnership and Partners - Under Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, every partner is liable jointly and severally for all acts of the firm done while they are partners. The liability extends to the partners for acts committed in the ordinary course of business, and the firm itself is not legally recognized without its partners. This means criminal action under Section 138 of the NI Act can be initiated against the partnership and its partners, even if the firm is not formally joined as an accused, provided the partners are proceeded against individually ["Ritaben Kanubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat - Gujarat"] ["Hiteshkumar Pulin Gupta VS Prakashbahi Prajapati - Gujarat"] ["Sonali Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. - Allahabad"].
Action Against Partners Not in Existence at the Time of Transaction - If the alleged transaction occurred when the partner was not in existence or was not a partner at that time, they cannot be held liable for that act. For example, if a partner had retired before the transaction, they cannot be prosecuted for offences related to that transaction ["Darshak Ashvinbhai Chaniyara VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"] ["SHRUTI ATUL SHAH V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
Legal Procedure and Joinder of Parties - For a criminal complaint under Section 138, the partnership firm should ideally be impleaded as an accused. If the firm is not joined, proceedings can still be initiated against individual partners who were in charge or responsible at the relevant time, as liability can be vicarious or joint and several. The absence of the firm as an accused does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings against partners ["Manojbhai Ramnikbhai (Rojivadiya) Kuvadiya Partner Of Milan Tyres VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"] ["Darshak Ashvinbhai Chaniyara VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"] ["JAI AGARWAL, S/O. D. K. AGARWAL VS INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS HEAD-CREDIT SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. E. C. PRAVEEN REDDY - Karnataka"].
Persons Not in Charge or Responsible - Partners who were not in charge of the firm's affairs at the relevant time, or who have retired before the transaction, cannot be held liable. The liability is contingent upon their active involvement or responsibility during the offence ["SHRUTI ATUL SHAH V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"] ["P. Deeptha VS V. S. Chandrasekaran - Dishonour Of Cheque"].
Proceedings Against Non-Partners - Actions cannot be initiated against persons who are not partners at the relevant time of the transaction, as they lack the requisite connection or authority to bind the firm or be liable for its acts. Liability is based on the individual's role and responsibility during the offence ["SHRUTI ATUL SHAH V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
Analysis and Conclusion:- When the accused is a partnership firm, criminal proceedings under Section 138 can be initiated against the firm and its partners who were in charge or responsible at the time of the transaction. - If a partner was not in existence or not a partner at the relevant time, they cannot be prosecuted for that offence.- The firm should ideally be joined as an accused, but proceedings against individual partners are permissible if they were involved or responsible.- Action against a person who was not a partner at the time of the relevant transaction is not maintainable, as liability under the NI Act depends on active involvement during the offence.- Proper joinder of the partnership and responsible partners is essential for maintaining the validity of the proceedings.
References:- ["Ritaben Kanubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["Hiteshkumar Pulin Gupta VS Prakashbahi Prajapati - Gujarat"]- ["SHRUTI ATUL SHAH V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["C.PONNUSAMY vs CHINNAMMAN CONSTRUCTIONS - Madras"]- ["Kasaragod Self Employees Financing Company(R) VS Mamtha Rathnakara Shetty - Kerala"]- ["Manojbhai Ramnikbhai (Rojivadiya) Kuvadiya Partner Of Milan Tyres VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["Darshak Ashvinbhai Chaniyara VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["JAI AGARWAL, S/O. D. K. AGARWAL VS INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS HEAD-CREDIT SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. E. C. PRAVEEN REDDY - Karnataka"]- ["P. Deeptha VS V. S. Chandrasekaran - Dishonour Of Cheque"]
In the world of business transactions, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are common, especially involving partnership firms. But what if the accused is a partnership firm and its partners? A frequent question arises: If the accused in a 138 matter is a partnership firm and its partners, what should be done? Can an action be initiated against a person who is not the partner at the time of the relevant transaction?
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court rulings. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under Section 141 of the NI Act, vicarious liability attaches to partners only when the partnership firm is made an accused. The firm must be arraigned as the primary offender for proceedings against partners to hold water. Prosecution solely against individual partners, without joining the firm, is typically not sustainable. Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016)
The Supreme Court has clarified: For maintaining prosecution against a partner under Section 141 of NI Act, arraigning of partnership firm as an accused is imperative.Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016) This ensures the firm is deemed the offender, extending liability to partners who were in charge. Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287
Key requirements:- The partnership firm must be listed as an accused.- Partners are liable only if they were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the time of the transaction.- Mere partnership status isn't enough; specific responsibility must be proven. Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287
Unlike companies, which are juristic persons, partnership firms aren't distinct entities but are treated similarly under Section 141 via its Explanation. The firm represents the collective, and without it as accused, individual liability can't be fastened criminally. Vicarious liability in criminal law in terms of Section 141 of NI Act cannot be fastened because of civil liability.Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287
In Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016), courts quashed proceedings where partners were sued alone, emphasizing: Prosecution launched against a partner alone, without joining the partnership firm, is not sustainable.
A partner who joined after the cheque issuance or wasn't responsible for the transaction can't be prosecuted. The prosecution bears the burden: A person who does not bear out requirements of ‘in charge of and responsible to company for conduct of its business’ is not vicariously liable under Section 141 of NI Act.Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287
This protects inactive or subsequent partners from undue harassment.
While the core rule mandates arraigning the firm, nuances emerge from other cases:
Firm's Independent Prosecution: A partnership firm can sometimes be prosecuted alone under Section 138, without partners, as it's a 'person' under the General Clauses Act. The impugned prosecution of the partnership firm without its partners being proceeded against is absolutely lawful.R. B. Hosiery VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 858
Liability Extends to Partners: When an offence is proved against the firm, partners are jointly and severally liable, even if the firm isn't formally accused initially. Courts may allow impleading the firm later. Partners and Partnership Firm are one and the same – Such a juristic entity (Partnership Firm) is not distinct from partners who comprise partnership.Dhanasingh Prabhu VS Chandrasekar - 2025 6 Supreme 385
Unregistered Firms: Registration status doesn't affect NI Act liability. Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act bars civil suits but not criminal prosecutions under Section 138. The firm must still be accused alongside partners. V. RAJESHWARI VS RAMESH - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3333Rangabashyam VS Ramesh - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2131
Section 25 Partnership Act Link: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.Dhanasingh Prabhu VS Chandrasekar - 2025 6 Supreme 385P. Deeptha & Another VS V. S. Chandrasekaran - 2003 Supreme(Mad) 636 However, this civil joint liability doesn't automatically trigger criminal vicarious liability without Section 141 compliance. Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287
Exceptions like Minors: Minors at the time of the offence aren't liable under the NI Act, protected by the Juvenile Justice Act. P. Deeptha & Another VS V. S. Chandrasekaran - 2003 Supreme(Mad) 636
These rulings show flexibility—complainants may proceed against partners if the firm is represented, but best practice is to include the firm explicitly to avoid quashing. C.PONNUSAMY vs CHINNAMMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
To validly pursue a Section 138 case:1. Array the Firm as Accused: Essential for partner liability. Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016)2. Prove Responsibility: Show the partner was in charge during the transaction. Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 2873. Issue Proper Notice: Statutory notice under Section 138 should ideally go to the firm and responsible partners.4. Avoid Sole Partner Prosecution: Risks dismissal. V. RAJESHWARI VS RAMESH - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3333
If the firm isn't joined, courts may quash or direct impleadment, but delays can arise. Dhanasingh Prabhu VS Chandrasekar - 2025 6 Supreme 385
In ALFA GRAPHICS VS ARJUN KOHLI - 2008 Supreme(Del) 136, it's noted a complainant may choose not to proceed against partners if unaware, but the firm can still face summons.
| Aspect | Requirement ||--------|-------------|| Firm as Accused | Mandatory for partner prosecution Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016) || Partner Liability | In charge at transaction time Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287 || Unregistered Firm | Same rules apply V. RAJESHWARI VS RAMESH - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3333 || Firm Alone | Possible independently R. B. Hosiery VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 858 |
In summary, while partnership dynamics complicate Section 138 cases, judicial clarity prioritizes proper arraignment and proven responsibility. This safeguards genuine claims while preventing abuse.
References:1. Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287: Vicarious liability essentials.2. Philip J. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016): Firm arraignment imperative.3. Other cases as cited above.
Stay informed—cheque bounce laws evolve. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #PartnershipLiability
The complainant is not at obligation to plead in the complaint special role of each partner, as said matter is within the special knowledge of the partnership firm or the partners of the partnership firm to specify the role attributed to them in the partnership firm. ... The common argument was made that the partnership firm has not been joined as accu....
Liability of a partner for acts of the firm:- Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. ... Mode Of Doing Act To Bind Firm:- In order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of the firm shall be done o....
Admittedly, when the cheques in question were issued, the applicant-accused was not, at all, the partner of the firm. Even, in the complaint itself, it is not mentioned anywhere that when the cause of action arose, the applicant-accused was the partner of the firm. ... Here in the case at hand, as stated above, the alleged transaction took place while the applicant-accused was a partner#....
relevant time. ... known about the transaction.
Mode of doing act to bind firm.— In order to bind a firm, an act or instrument done or executed by a partner or other person on behalf of the firm shall be done or executed in the firm name, or in any other manner expressing or implying an intention to bind the firm.” ... In these circumstances, it cannot be said that at the time the plaint was filed it was defective because the Power of Attorney in favour of Dunde....
In the cases on hand, the partnership firm is required to be impleaded as accused, which is admittedly not done in these cases, the cheques are issued by the partnership firm and signed by one of the partners and there is no dispute of existence of the partnership firm at the relevant point of time. ... That, the relevant communication was made to the Income Tax....
by the partnership firm and signed by one of the partners and there is no dispute of existence of the partnership firm at the relevant point of time; even the notice correspondence is not done with the partnership firm. ... For fastening the criminal liability, there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the fi....
Section 25 provides that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done by the partner. ... Liability of a partner for acts of the firm - Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. 26. ... Therefore, if the complainant herein ha....
Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act makes it plain that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. ... Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act makes it plain that every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner#H....
Liability of a partner for acts of the firm.— Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.” Section 42(c):- “42. ... During the subsistence of the partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of the property as his own…His right is to obtain such profits, if any, as fall to his share from time to time#H....
The issue involved in this case is that the partnership firm is an unregistered firm and therefore according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the firm need not be made as an accused and the complaint can be filed straight away against the partners. The question involved in this case is whether an unregistered Partnership Firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in such cases whether the Partnership Firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for a....
2. An interesting issue has come up for consideration before this Court. The question involved in this case is whether an unregistered Partnership Firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in such cases whether the Partnership Firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ? The issue involved in this case is that the partnership firm is an unregistered firm and therefore according to the learne....
Therefore, the impugned prosecution of the partnership firm without its partners being proceeded against is absolutely lawful and does not deserve any interference. Either the partners who are in-charge of the business of the accused partnership firm and responsible to it for conducting its day to day business or such partnership firm separately as well as they can together be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments The scheme of the special statute also does not lay down any condition that a firm cannot be prosecuted separately ....
.7. The Explanation to Section 141 makes it clear that wherever there is a reference under Section 141 to a company it has to be substituted by the word firm where the accused is a partnership firm and the provision has to be read as if it refers to the firm. What this means is that a complaint can be filed for the offence under Section 138 NI Act not only against the partnership firm on whose behalf the cheque was issued but also against an individual partner or person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was in charge of the affairs of the firm or responsible to it ....
Accordingly, his contention is that the second accused in the present case, which is a partnership firm should be shown as the first accused in the cause title and the accused shown in the cause title namely Pandi Selvam should be shown as the second accused in the complaint. 5. It is against this complaint, the petitioner had filed a preliminary objection before the Court below, raising various grounds. The first ground according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when a partnership firm is an accused, as per Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the partnersh....
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
