9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trial Court decides during the course of the trial. In the present case, though there is no dispute that the petitioners were inducted as partners of the firm on 10th February, 2011, but fact of the matter remains that the cheque, dishonour of which has led to filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bears the date 15th March, 2013, i.e. after the induction of the petitioners as partners of the partnership firm. This Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Partnership Act which provide that a person who is introduced as a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner do not come to the rescue of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were inducted as partners of respondent No. 2-partnership firm, on 10th of February, 2011. The complaint, which has been instituted against them and other respondents, copy whereof stands appended with the present petition as Annexure P-1, pertains purportedly to a liability of the said partnership firm, which was pertaining to the period prior to the date of their induction as partners, and in this view of the matter, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the proceedings, which have been initiated against the present petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are per se bad in law and the same are liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the petitioners for their discharge but said prayer was rejected in terms of the order which has been passed vide Annexure P-6, perusal whereof would demonstrate that rejection of the prayer of the petitioners was not on merit but on technical grounds wherein learned Court held that it has no power to discharge the accused. In the course of his submissions, Mr. Sharma also referred to Annexure P-2, which is the copy of partnership deed vide which the petitioners were inducted as partners into the partnership firm dated 10th February, 2011, and by referring to the provisions thereof in general and Clause 15 in particular, he submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the said deed also that the petitioners shall not be responsible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, i.e. present petitioners were added and introduced as partners. He further submitted that the reliance placed upon the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Partnership Act is totally misplaced for the reason that herein the cheque, dishonour of which led to filing of the complaint, is dated after the induction of the present petitioners as partners, therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not liable for the said act of the firm. On these bases, he submitted that the present petition being without merit be dismissed. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that even assuming that the liability was pertaining to the period prior to the induction of the petitioners as partners, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a sum of Rs. 6,86,230/- in favour of the complainant. The same was drawn upon Indian Overseas Bank, Solan. When the complainant deposited said cheque in its bank for encashment, the same was returned back to the complainant with remarks insufficient funds . Thereafter statutory notice was issued by the complainant to all the accused, which included the present petitioners also, calling upon them to make good the payment of cheque amount within a period of 15 days as from the date of receipt of the notice, and as payment was not made by the accused even after issuance of the notice, this led to filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. This Court would like to make an observation at this very stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a partner into a firm does not thereby become liable for any act of the firm done before he became a partner do not come to the rescue of the petitioners for the purpose of quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because herein the act which led to the filing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is issuance and dishonour of the cheque which bears the date 15th March, 2013, i.e. post the date on induction of the present petitioners as partners of the partnership firm. This Court is refraining from making any observation with regard to contention of the petitioner that liability for which the cheque was issued was relatable to the period prior to the induction of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
