Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (5) TMI 1358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowed at the behest of Respondent-Accused No.4. 2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of the petition before the High Court were that the Appellant had filed a complaint against M/s AVS Constructions - a Partnership Firm (Accused No.1), and its partners i.e., S. Yuvaraju (Accused No.2), S. Sundaraiah (Accused No.3 and S. Srinivasan (Accused No.4) for dishonouring of twelve cheques of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) each aggregating Rs.6,00,00,000/- (Six Crore) towards the refund of sale consideration as issued by accused No.1 - M/s AVS Constructions (hereinafter, "Partnership Firm") being signed by Accused No.2, the authorized signatory. The cheques, upon presentation, stood dishonoured due to 'stop payment' instructions issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly after verifying the said aspect that the legal notice was issued to the Respondent. Allegations were also made that the Respondent, in an attempt to escape his liability, had fabricated a backdated retirement deed in connivance with the other accused and got an entry made in the ledger of the Registrar of Firms on 20.10.2020 that he had ceased to be a partner. 5B. It is asserted that this entry in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Firms is subsequent to the date of issuance of the cheques as also after the issuance of the legal notice. 5C. Section 72 of the Partnership Act has also not been complied with, which mandates and requires a retired partner to publish a public notice in one of the vernacular newspapers circulated in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the date of issuance of the cheques, and therefore could not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. The Counsel for the Parties have argued their case on the basis of the above pleadings and factual assertions. 8. On considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. It is apparent that the plea of the Respondent, as has been accepted by the High Court vide impugned order, regarding his claim of not being a partner of the Partnership Firm (Accused No.1), in whose name and on whose behalf the cheques have been issued, signed by S. Yuvaraju (Accused No.2), an authorized signatory, does not in any manner, foist liability upon the Respondent herein needs to be tested on the anvil of the pleadings an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 59 of the Partnership Act. 10. None of these requirements as provided and mandated for under the Statute, have been adhered to by Respondent No.1. Merely putting forth a resignation or the partners entering into an agreement or drafting a deed or/and accepting the resignation of a partner of the Firm is insufficient for discharging the liability of a partner of the Firm unless a proper entry to the said effect after the publication has been given effect to with the same, having been recorded in the Register of Firms in the office of the Registrar of Firms as provided for in Section 63 of Partnership Act. 11. Further, simply because the cheques were signed by S. Yuvaraju (Accused No.2), who was the authorized signatory of the Pa....