Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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