9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anr. 02. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in support of his petition, it is necessary to notice material facts briefly. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged as Project Coordinator by the respondent no. 2 for the execution of NFS Project allotted to respondent no. 1 for a monthly salary of Rs. 42,000/-The petitioner was also entitled to 2% commission of the project cost for rendering consultancy services as well. During the course of his employment, the petitioner was issued a cheque by the respondent no. 2 amounting to Rs. 15.00 lacs drawn at Jammu and Kashmir Bank in lieu of the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner presented the said cheque before the concerned Branch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the Revisional Court did not appreciate that the business, in which, the petitioner had been engaged, was being run by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and, therefore, both the respondents were under a legal obligation to compensate the petitioner for the services he had rendered to them. The cheque issued by the respondent no. 2 was only towards discharge of joint liability of the respondents 1 and 2. 05. Per contra, Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no. 1. He further submits that cheque in the instant case has been issued by respondent no. 2 and the liability, if any, to pay the amount of cheque to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Welcome World Electrical Pvt. Ltd. is executing NFS Project in coordination with respondent no. 1 does not make the petitioner an employee of the later. That apart, cheque for the discharge of liability towards the petitioner has been issued by the respondent no. 2 as is evident from the copy of the cheque placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-4 and the cheque has been returned with the memo 'insufficient funds' in the account of respondent no. 2. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to comprehend the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 being a partner in business with respondent no. 1 too is guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 07. In order to maintain a compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f learned counsel for the petitioner is totally meritless and misconceived. In the instant case, going by the allegations contained in the complaint and the supporting evidence placed on record, it is respondent no. 2, a company, which is accused of committing an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. By operation of Section 141 of the N.I. Act, it is not only the company i.e., respondent no. 2, but every person, who, at the time of commission of offence was incharge of, and responsible to the company for conduct of business, shall be deemed to have committed offence and, therefore, liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Section 141 of the N.I. Act cannot be stretched so as to fasten the liability on the other company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
