LawforAll

Showing posts with label Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free -NO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free -NO. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2014

Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free -NO - High court quashed the summons issued against the company by trial court and confirmed the summons issued against the appellant - Apex court held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh17 which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.” In the present case, the High Court by impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 held that the complaint against respondent no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. Thereby, the Company being not a party to the proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the High Court in Anil Hada (supra) has been overruled by three Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), we have no other option but to set aside the rest part of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court held that the proceedings against the appellant can be continued even in absence of the Company. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court so far it relates to appellant and quash the summon and proceeding pursuant to complaint case No.698 of 2001 qua the appellant.The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation.=Anil Gupta … APPELLANT VERSUS Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41752

  Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free  -NO - High c...