9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f common order. 3.Despite service of notice to the respondent and his name being printed in the cause list, the respondent failed to appear before this Court. Hence, this Court by order dated 31.08.2020 appointed Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent. 4.The gist of the case is that the respondent/complainant was dealing in the business of food grains in the name of M/s.Choudhary Milling Industries and A1 company was on the same business in the name of M/s.Varshini Traders. A2 is the Proprietor of A1 and A3 is the Signatory of A1. The accused were approached the respondent for purchase of goods and the same was sold to the accused by credit basis. Initially, in the year 2011, the accused purchased goods from the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, against which the present quash petitions. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that in this case A1 is M/s.Varshini Traders, A2 is the Proprietor of A1 and A3 is the wife of A3. To discharge the liability, the cheques were issued and the same were got dishonoured. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/A3 was not issued any cheques and she is not an authorized signatory of A1 company. The sole Proprietor of A1 company is her husband/A2 and he was only signed the cheques and issued the same to the respondent. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as far as the Proprietorship concern is concerned, the sole Proprietor only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accounts Executive, R.Swaminathan reported in 2000 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 33 (Mad.). ● R.Dennis Raja Versus T.Subbiah reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2982. 12.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that A1/M/s.Varshini Traders was due to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 14,27,914/- and issued seven cheques dated 01.09.2014. The cheques were presented in the bank viz., Wardhaman Cooperative Bank, Nagpur on 09.06.2014, but it was returned on the same day with an endorsement 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT'. Then the respondent issued statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 25.09.2014 to the accused, but they failed to make payment. Therefore, the respondent preferred the complaint against the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of "Anas Industries, Chennai-97 rep. by its Proprietor S.Ram Mohan Versus Sri Suresh Bafna, Prop., Mansi Mercantile Company rep. by its Power of Attorney holder Sri Kantilal S.Dave reported in 1999 (1) MWN (Cr.) 296" held as follows:- "5.In M/s. Sri Sivasakthi Industries v. M/s. Arihant Metal Corporation, 1992 MLJ(Crl) 102, Pratap Singh, J., had an opportunity to consider an identical question wherein the respondent therein filed a private complaint against one Roman as the first accused in his capacity as a representative of a firm and as the second accused in his personal capacity. Pratap Singh, J. has observed as under: "Proprietary concern is not a firm. A firm is a partnership firm consisting of partners. In this case, the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
