9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, Annexure P2. 2. The impugned complaint has been filed by respondent firm for an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, as amended by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1981, on the allegations that firm M/s. Ambey Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Patiala, accused, constituted by its partners, Ashok Kumar and Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng partner in the respondent firm. She was not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the firm. No notice had been issued to her. 4. With respect of the offence against a Company, Section 141 of the Act provides as under: 141. Offences by companies: (1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who, at the time the offence was com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation: For the purposes of this Section (a) Company means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other associations of individuals; and (b) Director , in relation to a firm, means a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany. 6. In the impugned complaint, as well as in the evidence produced before the summoning, there is no allegations that Smt. Amrit Rani was incharge of the affairs of the firm or liable to the firm for its affairs as such, there was no material before the learned Magistrate to summon her under Section 138-B of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned summoning order is hereby quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
