Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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