Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Bombay High Court Rules Partners Liable in Cheque Bounce Case Despite Joining After Issuance of Cheque

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No. 688 of 2023 was filed by Rajesh Babulal Shah and Anr., the petitioners, against Chandresh Chimanlal Shah and Anr., the respondents. The petitioners were represented by Dr. Samarth S. Karmarkar from Karmarkar and Associates, while Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP, appeared for the State.

The challenge in the petition was against the order dated 6th January 2020, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate 14th Court at Girgaon Mumbai, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners contended that they became partners of the accused No.1 firm with effect from 31st January 2019, and the cheque in question was dishonoured earlier but was presented for encashment on 7th March 2019 with an intention to initiate prosecution against them. They argued that they were not partners at the time of the transaction and the issuance of the cheque, and thus, liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not apply to them.

However, the court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238, which established that the person who is in-charge and responsible for the conduct of affairs of a firm/company is liable to be proceeded with and punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court noted that every person who is in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the firm on the date of the cheque, date of dishonour, date of receipt of notice, and on the 15th day of the date of receipt of notice are liable to be proceeded under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this case, the petitioners became partners on 31st January 2019, and the events of presentation of the cheque, dishonour notice, and expiry of 15th day after receipt of notice occurred after they became partners. Therefore, prima facie, the court found that the petitioners were liable to be proceeded under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with no costs. The order of issuance of the dishonour of the cheque was held to be suffering from illegality.

Rajesh Babulal Shah and Anr V/s. Chandresh Chimanlal Shah and Anr

Latest Legal News