Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |    

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 

Similar News