Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2007 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (10) TMI 694 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues involved:
Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; Interpretation of Section 141 of the Act regarding vicarious liability in a proprietary concern.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Quashing of Proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The petitioner sought relief to quash proceedings initiated against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that being the second accused in a case where the first accused, who is the sole proprietrix, issued disputed cheques, the petitioner cannot be vicariously held responsible. Citing the Supreme Court decision in RAGHU LAKSHMINARAYANAN VS FINE TUBES (2007) 5 SCC 103, it was argued that a proprietary concern is not covered under Section 141 of the Act, and therefore, vicarious liability does not apply to persons other than the proprietor.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The respondent argued that the petitioner actively participated in the proprietary concern and managed the business, making both accused jointly liable for the dishonored cheques. However, the court noted that even though the second accused was involved in managing the business along with the first accused, who was the sole proprietrix, this alone was insufficient to implicate the second accused. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation that a proprietary concern is distinct from a company or firm under Section 141 of the Act, absolving the second accused from vicarious liability.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and perusing the complaint and evidence, the court found that the first accused being the sole proprietrix, the second accused cannot be held vicariously liable for the offense under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and directed expedited trial within five months. The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates