Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 698 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of authorized signatory/signatory of the cheque on bouncing of the cheque - HELD THAT:- This court finds that the cheque was issued on 06.07.2019 by the Company amounting to Rs.5 lakh. It was presented on 09.07.2019. But it was not encashed and returned with endorsement "stop payment". In the complaint it has specifically been pleaded in paragraph 7 that the accused were responsible for conduct of the business at the relevant point of time. This fact has not been denied by the applicants in this petition. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides offences by companies. It provides that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Section 141 in the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicants in the case of SMS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS NEETA BHALLA [2005 (9) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT] and held that the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable. There is no denial that stop payment was made. A plea has also been taken that Gurucharan Singh, who has signed the Cheque was neither Director nor authorized signatory of the Company on the date of issuance of Cheque. But nothing has been placed before this court in support of this plea and disclosed as to who was the authorized signatory and as to how and why the applicants were not responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of Company, whereas the applicant no.1 is the Company and applicants no.2 to 4 are the Directors of the Company. Therefore, it can not be said that they are not responsible. Application dismissed.
|