9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring No. CC/NI Act/278/2020 under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, respondent No. 2 Tiger Logistics (India) Limited/ Complainant, was having its business relations with the petitioner, petitioner-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar (accused in the Complaint), the sole Proprietor of his Proprietorship Firm i.e., M/s Amax Agro Exports, which is engaged in trading business in agricultural products, mainly fruits and vegetables. The petitioner's Firm is alleged to have handed over Cheque bearing No. 069190 dated 21.07.2020 drawn on Axis Bank Limited in favour of the respondent No. 2-Complainant for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in discharge of his liabilities towards the respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roprietor who can be held responsible or incur liability, and it cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of NI Act, 1881 for a Cheque which does not bear his signatures. Moreover, Bhagawat Daulat Gawali is neither an employee nor the Authorised Representative of the petitioner-accused or his Proprietorship Firm. 7. It is, therefore, asserted that the Summoning Order dated 01.02.2021 suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be recalled. 8. The respondent No. 2 had contested the present petition on the ground that the Cheque though signed by Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, but is for and on behalf of the Proprietorship Firm, of which the petitioner-accused is the sole Proprietor. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Exports. Under the law, the Proprietorship Firm has no separate entity and in fact, it is only the sole Proprietor who can be summoned. This aspect has also been mentioned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the Summoning Order dated 01.02.2021, wherein only the petitioner, as the sole Proprietor, has been summoned, while his Proprietorship Firm has been held to be having no independent entity. 13. But the core issue which arises is that the Cheque has not been signed by the petitioner but by one Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, who is neither an employee nor a Legal Representative of the petitioner or his Proprietorship Firm. The Cheque may be having the stamp of the Proprietorship Firm, but there is not a whisper of any averment that he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
