Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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

Similar News