Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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