TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Instruments Act. The petitioners filed a revision against that order. In the light of some authorities, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the summoning order in this case was an interlocutory order, and so in view of the bar of Section 397(2) of the Code, the revision was not maintainable. (2) The complaint against the petitioners, their husbands and the firm M/s. Natraj Industries of which all four of them were, alleged to be partners, stated that the complainant was a public limited Co. having its registered office at Village Bholapur, District Ludhiana and one V. D'Souza was its Branch Manager holding a power of attorney. The firm of the petitioners and their husbands had business dealings with the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 under a common registered cover from the husbands of t('.s petitioners, one for the amount in question and the other for the amount due to the complainant on account of goods supplied to M/s. Natraj Paper Converter, another firm of the petitioners and their husbands. On presentment the cheque for the amount due in this complaint was again dishonoured with the banker's comments Exceeds Arrangement . This fact was again brought to the notice of the accused persons and they were again called upon to make the payment vide registered notice dated 27-11-90 within 15 days of the receipt of the notice failing which there was no way except the present complaint. (3) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners have been looking after the supervision of the business of the accused firm. Even upon the basis of common sense, if is not possible to infer that the husbands of the petitioners would not tell them about the receipt of any notice by them on behalf of the firm from tile respondent complainant. Since the receipt of notice in the case of a firm by even one partner habitually acting for the business of the firm operates as a notice to the firm, in such a situation the firm or. any of its other partners cannot set up the ignorance of notice to some of its members as a defense and claim any benefit. Therefore, in equity the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they did not receive any notice. Moreover, it may be noted that it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance on account of which this Court is called upon to exercise its inherent powers. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a string of authorities to show in what circumstances inherent powers can be exercised by this Court. The first case is that of Amar Nath others Vs. State to Haryana and others, 1977 CriLJ 1891. (1) In that case the police filed a charge sheet against a number of accused persons. On perusal of that report some of the accused persons were released. The complainant then filed a revision petition against the order of discharge before the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed the same. Thereafter he filed a regular complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against all including the released accused. After exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
