9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Liability of the respondent under Section 138 of the Act The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent, alleging dishonor of a cheque issued in discharge of a loan liability. The cheque was returned dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the amount was not paid within the stipulated time after legal notice. However, during the trial, it was established that the respondent was not the sole proprietor of the firm in question, and therefore, not liable to pay the cheque amount. Issue 2: Vicarious liability of employees of a sole proprietorship firm The judgment clarified that a sole proprietorship firm does not fall within the scope of Section 141 of the Act, which deals with vicarious liability in cases involving companies. It was emphasized that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on employees of a sole proprietorship firm, as there was no evidence to show that the business was run by the respondent in question. Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Letter of Mandate' The petitioner argued that a 'Letter of Mandate' authorized the respondent to operate the firm's bank account, making him personally liable. However, the court held that the mandate only granted authority to conduct banking transactions and did not make the respondent personally liable for the firm's debts. The mandate was binding on the bank and the sole proprietor, not on outsiders. In conclusion, the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition was upheld, as it was found that the respondent, not being the sole proprietor, could not be prosecuted and punished for the dishonored cheque issued by the firm.
|
