Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Legal Notice to Company Suffices: High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Summoning in Cheque Bounce Case Against Former Director

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a summoning order against Prabha Shankar Singh, a former Director of Delhi Infratech Limited (DIL), involved in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, emphasized that legal notices sent to a company are sufficient for its Directors, setting a precedent in cases involving corporate entities and their individual directors.

The case, titled Prabha Shankar Singh Vs. Sangita Kumari, revolved around a dishonored cheque of Rs. 2,50,000, issued by DIL to the respondent, Sangita Kumari. The cheque was returned due to the account being blocked. While a legal notice was sent to DIL, the petitioner, Mr. Singh, contended that he did not receive a personal legal notice and had ceased to be a Director at DIL, thus challenging the summoning order dated October 30, 2021, by the Trial Court.

In his judgment, Justice Banerjee noted, “A company is an independent entity run by living persons. As per settled position of law, in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against any Company, it is not necessitated a Legal Notice to be sent to each of the Director(s), specifically/ individually, whence the same is issued to the company instead.” This observation upholds the principle that a legal notice to a company suffices for its Directors.

Further, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the petitioner’s role at the time of the issuance of the cheque requires a trial. The Court cited the precedent set in the case of Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Limited vs Ilaa Agarwal & Ors, reinforcing that individual notices to Directors under Section 138 N.I. Act are not required.

Date of Decision: December 18, 2023

PRABHA SHANKAR SINGH VS  SANGITA KUMARI @ SANGITA 

Latest Legal News