TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,47,000, which includes interest, that when the cheque was tendered for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement funds insufficient , that even after the issue of mandatory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and in this view since he had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he should be dealt with accordingly. 3. The accused/respondent upon appearance appears to have not only denied the liability, but also the issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant for the alleged discharge of liability. 4. The Trial Court, after recording evidence, while scanning the same, came to the conclusion, that though the cheque was issued on behalf of Southern Biologicals, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of original, it is not known, how the Xerox copy was admitted as secondary evidence. Only in order to discharge the liability said to have been incurred by the respondent under Ex. P-1, it is said that the cheque was issued on 19.3.1997, which is exhibited as Ex, P-2. Ex. P-2 cheque was drawn by M/s Southern Bilogicals. though the accused had signed in the cheque as mandate holder. Therefore, one thing is clear that the liability was incurred only by M/s. Southern Bilogicals and therefore, the Proprietor of that Company or firm must be held responsible. After all, the accused whether he is known as C. Subramanian or C.S. Maniam, as the case may be, cannot be held personally responsible. Unfortunately, when this defence was raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the mandate holder. In this context, we have to further see, who is the mandate holder, what is his duty. 10. Mandate means in the commercial circle as per the law lexicon: A mandate is a contract by which a lawful business is committed to the management of another, and by him undertaken to be performed without reward. It is also further seen from the said definition, a mandate is an act by which one person gives power to another to transact for him and in his name, one or several affairs. From the above definition, it is crystal clear that the role of the mandate holder is limited. In the sense, obeying the mandate or any of the member and in this way alone, the accused in this case had signed in the cheque as mandate hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the above decision, the mandate holder as well as the account holder were shown as accused in an offence coming under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, the person, who had given the mandate to the person, who had signed in the cheque, claimed that since he has not signed in the cheque, he is not liable to answer the claim and in this way, she sought discharge from the case. While considering the above said facts, as well as considering the decision relied on by the Trial Court, this Court has correctly come to the conclusion, the mandate-giver cannot shrug off the claim of the demand of the opposite party under the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the cheque was issued to discharge the partial liability , w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
