9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Lokur, J. 1. The question arising for consideration in these appeals relates to the alleged failure (and consequential effect) of Pradip Sarkar to specifically state in his complaint filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the appellants/accused persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of M/s. Heritage Herbs Ltd. of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This led Pradip Sarkar to take steps to issue a notice to and initiate proceedings against Heritage Herbs and Raj Kumar Chamaria under the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings Raj Kumar Chamaria died on 10th December, 2003. 5. Thereafter, Pradip Sarkar moved an application for impleading the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the appellants in either of the complaints. Insofar as the first complaint is concerned, the appellants were not even made parties and therefore there is no question of any allegations being made against them in that complaint. As far as the second complaint is concerned, the only allegation made is to be found in paragraph 6 thereof which reads as follows:- "That in this context your petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce it to say, that the law has once again been stated in A.K.Singhania vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Company Ltd. MANU/SC/1081/2013 to the effect that it is necessary for a complainant to state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Although, no particular form for making such an allegation is prescribed, and it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
