Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (2) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cuting NFS Project in coordination with respondent no. 1 does not make the petitioner an employee of the later. That apart, cheque for the discharge of liability towards the petitioner has been issued by the respondent no. 2 as is evident from the copy of the cheque placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-4 and the cheque has been returned with the memo insufficient funds in the account of respondent no. 2. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to comprehend the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 being a partner in business with respondent no. 1 too is guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is axiomatic that it is only the person who has issued the cheque fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Adv. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, Adv, for 1 ORDER 01. The petitioner by the medium of this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now repealed and replaced by Section 482 Cr. P.C.), seeks quashment of the Order dated 3rd November, 2018 passed by the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, (Revisional Court), in a revision petition titled Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khuroo and Anr. 02. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in support of his petition, it is necessary to notice material facts briefly. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged as Project C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epted by the Revisional Court vide its Order dated 03.11.2018 and the impugned order qua the respondent no. 1 was set aside vide Order dated 3rd November, 2018 impugned in this petition. 04. Order impugned has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Revisional Court has not appreciated, that by virtue of Section 141 of the N.I.Act, both the companies, which were jointly executing the project, were liable to be proceeded against and punished for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and that the Revisional Court did not appreciate that the business, in which, the petitioner had been engaged, was being run by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and, therefore, both the respondents were under a legal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no. 1. 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I do not find it a fit case for indulgence in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court by Section 561 A Cr. P.C. (now Section 482 Cr. P.C.). Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of respondent no. 2, this is evident from the certificate placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-2 with the petition, which is also reproduced by the Revisional Court in the judgement impugned. Simply because the employer of the petitioner i.e., Welcome World Electrical Pvt. Ltd. is executing NFS Project in coordination with respondent no. 1 does not make the petitioner an employee of the later. That apart, cheque for the discharge of liability towards .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is evident from the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. 09. The petitioner has also placed strong reliance upon Section 141 of the N.I. Act to contend that it is not only the respondent no. 2, who has issued the cheque, but also the respondent no. 1, who is partner with respondent no. 2 in the business is liable to be proceeded against and punished, accordingly, by the aid of Section 141 of the N.I. Act. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally meritless and misconceived. In the instant case, going by the allegations contained in the complaint and the supporting evidence placed on record, i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates