Petitioner’s Status as an Authorized Signatory Isn’t Sufficient to Invoke Vicarious Liability for the Offence u/s 138 of the NI Act
- News|Blog|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 3 May, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Mrs. Mithlesh Gupta v. National Industrial Corporation Ltd. - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 56 (HC-Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Navin Chawla, J.
- T.V. George, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Vikas Kumar & Ayush Kapur, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the accused proprietorship firm represented through another accused and petitioner was engaged in distribution and marketing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (I.M.F.L).
The representative accused on behalf of accused proprietorship firm approached complainant and offered their services for promotion, marketing and maximizing sale of Complainant’s brands.
The Complainant agreed to take services of accused proprietorship firm and accordingly a distributorship agreement was signed by and between complainant and accused proprietorship firm.
During the course of business, it was alleged by complainant that accused proprietorship firm had an outstanding balance against which it issued cheque but on presentation, said cheque was dishonoured. Resultantly, complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against accused proprietorship firm, representative and petitioner.
High Court Held
The High Court noted that, in complaint, complainant itself had pleaded that cheque in question was signed by accused representative as proprietor of accused proprietorship firm.
Further, in complaint, petitioner had been arrayed as another accused on premise that she was authorized signatory of accused proprietorship firm and that she signed distributorship between accused proprietorship firm and complainant along with accused representative.
The High Court held that it was not sufficient to invoke vicarious liability of offence under Section 138 of NI Act, in terms of Section 141 of NI Act, on petitioner. Further, complaint against petitioner could not be sustained, and accordingly, same was to be quashed as against petitioner.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
