HC held that mere mention of a designated partner as key ...

Partner Not Automatically Liable for Company's Bounced Cheque Without Direct Proof of Consent or Involvement

April 8, 2025

Case Laws Indian Laws HC

HC held that mere mention of a designated partner as key management personnel is insufficient to establish vicarious liability under Sections 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint failed to demonstrate prima facie liability, particularly when the partner specifically denied involvement and LLP agreement clauses required explicit consent for financial transactions. The partner's email reply denying responsibility, submitted before complaint filing, further undermined allegations. Given inadequate statutory compliance and lack of substantive evidence, the criminal complaint against the petitioner was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Revision application allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC held that mere mention of a designated partner as key ...

Partner Not Automatically Liable for Company's Bounced Cheque Without Direct Proof of Consent or Involvement

April 8, 2025

Case Laws Indian Laws HC

You may also like:

Dishonor of Cheque - Vicarious liability of Director - The primary liability in a cheque bounce case where cheque has been issued on behalf of the company is upon the...

The complaint of dishonour of cheque was challenged for lack of necessary averments against the partners. Partnership Act provisions establish partners' liability for...

Dishonor of Cheque - dues was against the company but the cheque was issued by the petitioner from his personal account - Legally enforceable debt or not, in personal...

Dishonor of Cheque - framing of charges against the Directors - vicarious liability - only directors of company is made the accused, leaving the company - commission of...

Dishonor of Cheque - cheques in question have not even been issued by the petitioner company - misuse of letter heads of the petitioner company - The petitioner company...

Dishonor of Cheque - Insufficient Funds - Since, the drawer of the cheque was the accused Company, solely on the ground that the respondent had signed the cheque, a...

Dishonour of Cheque - validity of notice issued - as in the notice which was issued after the bouncing of the cheque, there was no demand of the amount of the bounced...

Dishonour of Cheque - Seeking setting aside of summoning order - vicarious liability on partner of a firm - The name of the petitioner is conspicuously not mentioned as...

Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of Director - The petitioners admit that the cheque was drawn by them and handed over to the respondent-complainant. However,...

SC held that non-executive directors cannot be held vicariously liable under Sections 138 and 141 of NI Act for dishonored cheques without specific evidence of their...

The HC upheld the order of the Revisional Court, declining to quash the complaint u/ss 138/141 of the NI Act against the petitioners, who were partners of the...

Dishonor of Cheque - An offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is technical in nature and defences, which an accused can take, are inbuilt; for instance, the cheque was...

Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of director - The petitioners argued that they had resigned from their directorship well before the cheque was issued and could...

Dishonour of Cheque - “drawer" of the cheque - signatory of the cheque, authorized by the "Company" Thus, the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the "Company", is...

Dishonor of Cheque - the said bouncing of cheques on second presentation cannot be a ground for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as...

Quick Updates: