9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1746 - SC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - acquittal of Respondents on the ground that the Appellant did not institute the case against the partnership firm i.e. M/s. Shah Enterprises - HELD THAT - From a bare reading of Section 138 of the NI Act the first and foremost essential ingredient for attracting a liability under this Section is that the person who is to be made liable should be the drawer of the cheque and should have drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole or part of any debt or other liability. The High Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the liabilities of M/s. Shah Agencies were never taken over by M/s. Shah Enterprises. Therefore the reasoning given by the High Court is absolutely flawless and we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of leave to appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court by the High Court. 2. Dispute regarding liability in a case involving dishonoured cheques. 3. Interpretation of Section 138 and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Issue 1: Rejection of Leave to Appeal: The appeal was directed against the High Court's decision to reject the prayer for leave to appeal against the Trial Court's judgment. The High Court held that the case made in the complaint indicated the liability of M/s. Shah Enterprises, not M/s. Shah Agencies. The Appellant's affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief presented a different case, stating that the liability was of M/s. Shah Agencies. The High Court concluded that the liability of M/s. Shah Agencies was not taken over by M/s. Shah Enterprises, leading to the rejection of the application for leave to appeal. Issue 2: Dispute Regarding Liability: The case involved dishonoured cheques issued by M/s. Shah Enterprises, leading to a complaint lodged against the accused. The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents as the case was not instituted against the partnership firm, M/s. Shah Enterprises. The Appellant's argument that the liability was of M/s. Shah Agencies was contested by the Respondents, emphasizing that the complaint targeted the accused in their personal capacities. The High Court analyzed the notice of demand, complaint, and evidence, concluding that the liabilities of M/s. Shah Agencies were not transferred to M/s. Shah Enterprises, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of NI Act: The discussion revolved around the application of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court highlighted the essential requirement under Section 138 that the drawer of the cheque should be liable for the payment. Reference was made to precedents emphasizing that prosecution proceedings can be initiated against natural persons, body corporates, or firms as drawers of dishonoured cheques. The judgment underscored that for liability under Section 138, the actual offence should be committed by the drawer, and other related parties could be held liable based on legal provisions. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the liabilities of M/s. Shah Agencies were not transferred to M/s. Shah Enterprises. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
|
