Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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