9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner-accused or his Proprietorship Firm. The Cheque does not bear the signatures of the petitioner-accused and therefore, cannot be held liable either for the issuance of Cheque or its consequent dishonour. The assertion of the respondent No. 2-Complainant that Bhagawat Daulat Gawali had issued the Cheque for and on behalf of the petitioner-accused in discharge of his liability is not tenable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. This may be a valid ground for filing a Suit for Recovery but definitely under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 which is specific and is applicable only to the Drawer and Drawee of the Cheque, no third party can be summoned under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. Therefore, the petitioner-accused not being a signatory to the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has asserted that the signatory of the Cheque is one Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, but it bears the rubber stamp of the Proprietorship Firm of the petitioner-accused which has been dishonestly and mischievously put under the signatures of Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, which on presentation was dishonoured vide Cheque Return Memo dated 14.09.2020, with the remarks "Drawer's Signature Differs". 4. In response to the Statutory Demand Notice dated 16.09.2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act, 1881") issued by respondent No. 2-Complainant, petitioner-accused gave an appropriate Reply stating therein that the sole Proprietorship Firm has no independent, separate and legal entity. Furthermore, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dismissed. 9. Submissions heard. 10. Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 is relevant which reads as under: - "Section 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the petitioner-accused. 14. Pertinently, the Cheque in question has been dishonoured on the ground of signature being different, which again implies that Bhagawat Daulat Gawali had no authority to sign the Cheque for and on behalf of the petitioner-accused or his Proprietorship Firm. The Cheque does not bear the signatures of the petitioner-accused and therefore, cannot be held liable either for the issuance of Cheque or its consequent dishonour. 15. The assertion of the respondent No. 2-Complainant that Bhagawat Daulat Gawali had issued the Cheque for and on behalf of the petitioner-accused in discharge of his liability is not tenable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. This may be a valid ground for filing a Suit for Recovery but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
