9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 378(4) Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31st March, 2010 passed by Trial Court, whereby complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been dismissed and respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. Brief facts are that the petitioner file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucceeded in showing that he was not the sole proprietor of M/s. Tina Toni Creations. Shri Manmohan Dhawan was the proprietor. Trial Court has noted that Manmohan Dhawan was not impleaded as proprietor of said firm. Respondent No. 2 Gopal was, thus, not liable to pay the cheque amount. 4. It is well settled that a sole proprietorship firm has no separate legal identity and in fact is a business na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the employees of a sole partnership firm, by taking aid of Section 141 of the Act, inasmuch as, no evidence has been led to show that the business was run by the respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that DW1 has produced 'Letter of Mandate' executed by the proprietor of M/s Tina Toni Creations, which shows that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
