8/12/2019 blawass

1/10

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of M/s. Intel Travels Ltd (Company). The said Companyas also the respondent company had 2 business transactions. Appellant on behalf of the company issued

a cheque dated 17.1.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was dishonoured.Respondent filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short).

The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her.

Respondent had not even served any notice upon the Company in terms of Section 138 of the Act. Itserved a notice only on the appellant presumably on the premise that she was in charge and responsibleto the company for its day to day affairs.

3. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment refused to quash the proceedings, as prayed forby the appellant, holding:

"This section does not say that the cheques should have been drawn for the discharge of any debt orother liability of the drawer towards the payee.

Even the Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by which a legal presumption is created, theParliament has only fixed the presumption that the cheque was issued 'for the dishcarge, in whole or inpart, or any debt or other liability.' This would mean that the debt or other liability includes the due fromany other person. It 3 is not necessary that the debt or liability should be due from the drawer himself. Itcan be issued for the discharges of any other man's debt liability.

Legally enforceable debt or liability would have a reference to the nature of the debt or liability and not theperson against whom the debt or liability can be enforced. One has to go by the averments in thecomplaint. The complainant has averred that it is the petitioner who had purchased the tickets from the

complainant and the cheque in question was given by them in discharge of their liability. The demand notice dated 8.5.2001 is also sent to the two petitioners and not to the company. What thepetitioners state here may be their defence."

4. A company being a body corporate is capable of suing and being sued in its own name.

Section 7 of the Act defines "drawer" to mean the maker of a bill of exchange or a cheque. The authorisedsignatory of a company does not become the drawer of the cheque only because he has been authorisedto do so for the purpose of banking operations. Admittedly, the bank account was also in the name of thecompany. The account was, therefore, maintained by the Company.

5. Section 138 of the Act reads as under:

"Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by aperson on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to 4 anotherperson from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, isreturned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that accountis insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that accountby an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence andshall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term whichmay be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or withboth;

8/12/2019 blawass

2/10

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented tothe bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity,whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for thepayment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, withinthirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque asunpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to thepayee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receiptof the said notice."

6. A complaint petition may be maintainable at the instance of the person in whose favour the chequewas drawn only when:- 5 (i) the cheque was drawn by `a person'; and (ii) the cheque was drawn on anaccount maintained by `him' with a banker for payment of any amount of money to `another person' fromout of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by thebank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the drawer is insufficient tohonour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount to be paid from that account; and (iii)in that event `sucha person' shall be deemed to have committed an offence.

7. The person referred to in the said provisions, therefore, must not only be the drawer of the cheque but

should have been maintaining an account with the banker.8. Appellant does not answer either of the descriptions of such `the person' referred to in Section 138 ofthe Act. Admittedly, she was only an authorised signatory and the amount with the banker was to bemaintained by the Company. Cheque was drawn by the Company and not by the appellant. She did notdo so on her own behalf. She issued the cheque in course of ordinary business transaction.

6

9. The Parliament for meeting a contingency of this nature, namely, where a company is an offender, hasraised a legal fiction in terms whereof any person who at the time the offence was committed, wasincharge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the company, shall be deemed to be guiltyof the offence.

10. For the said purpose, the company itself must be made an accused. It has been so held by this Courtin a number of decisions to which I would refer to a little later.

11. In this case, indisputably the company is the principal offender. A director of the company inter aliacan be proceeded against if he is found to be responsible therefor as envisaged under Section 141 of theAct.

12. The said provision reads, thus:

"141. Offences by companies .--(1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company,every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to thecompany for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to beguilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if heproves that the offence was committed without his 7 knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligenceto prevent the commission of such offence:

2 "Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holdingany office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporationowned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shallnot be liable for prosecution under this chapter."

8/12/2019 blawass

3/10

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where any offence under this Act has beencommitted by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent orconnivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or otherofficer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to beguilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,-- ( a ) "company" means any body corporate and includesa firm or other association of individuals;

and ( b ) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."

8

13. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, thecompany must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do. Legal fiction is raisedboth against the Company as well as the person responsible for the acts of the Company.

Unlike other statutes, this Act raises a presumption not only in tems of Section 139 of the Act but alsounder Section 118(a) thereof. Those presumptions in given cases may have to be rebutted. The accusedmust be given an opportunity to rebut the said presumption. An accused is entitled to be represented in a

case so as to enable it to establish that allegations made against it are not correct.14. Section 141 of the Act raises a legal fiction. Such a legal fiction can be raised only when theconditions therefor are fulfilled; one of it being that company is also prosecuted.

15. The Section uses the terms "as well as the company". The company which is, thus, the principaloffender must be included in the category of the accused. Here, I am not dealing with a case where anindividual act of a person is purporting to represent a company. In relation to business transactions, acompany as a corporate entity may have created its own reputation. It must maintain it. If a complaint isfiled, in a given case, only 9 on the basis of the presumptions raised in the statute, it may be held to beguilty as a result whereof the reputation of the company shall suffer. It may, thus, suffer grave civilconsequences.

16. It is no longer res integra that a company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding, even

where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for.17. The question as to whether a company can be proceeded against when a mandatory imprisonment isprescribed in law came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in StandardChartered Bank and Others v. Directorate of Enforcement and Others [(2005) 4 SCC 530] wherein thisCourt upon considering a large number of decisions as also the principle "lex non cogit ad impossibilia"opined:

"30. As the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, the court has to resort to punishment ofimposition of fine which is also a prescribed punishment. As per the scheme of various enactments andalso the Indian Penal Code, mandatory custodial sentence is prescribed for graver offences. If theappellants' plea is accepted, no company or corporate bodies could be prosecuted for the graver offenceswhereas they could be prosecuted for minor offences as the sentence prescribed therein is custodialsentence or fine. We do not think that the intention of the 10 legislature is to give complete immunity fromprosecution to the corporate bodies for these grave offences. The offences mentioned under Section56(1) of the FERA Act, 1973, namely, those under Section 13; clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of Section18; Section 18-A; clause ( a ) of sub- section (1) of Section 19; sub-section (2) of Section 44, for whichthe minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment is prescribed, are serious offences and if committedwould have serious financial consequences affecting the economy of the country. All those offences couldbe committed by company or corporate bodies. We do not think that the legislative intent is not toprosecute the companies for these serious offences, if these offences involve the amount or value ofmore than Rs. one lakh, and that they could be prosecuted only when the offences involve an amount orvalue less than Rs. one lakh.

8/12/2019 blawass

4/10

(Emphasis supplied)

31. As the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, the court cannot impose that punishment, butwhen imprisonment and fine is the prescribed punishment the court can impose the punishment of finewhich could be enforced against the company. Such a discretion is to be read into the section so far asthe juristic person is concerned. Of course, the court cannot exercise the same discretion as regards anatural person.

Then the court would not be passing the sentence in accordance with law. As regards company, the courtcan always impose a sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment can be ignored as it isimpossible to be carried out in respect of a company. This appears to be the intention of the legislatureand we find no difficulty in construing the statute in such a way. We do not think that 11 there is a blanketimmunity for any company from any prosecution for serious offences merely because the prosecutionwould ultimately entail a sentence of mandatory imprisonment. The corporate bodies, such as a firm orcompany undertake a series of activities that affect the life, liberty and property of the citizens. Large-scale financial irregularities are done by various corporations. The corporate vehicle now occupies such alarge portion of the industrial, commercial and sociological sectors that amenability of the corporation to acriminal law is essential to have a peaceful society with stable economy."

(Emphasis supplied) An earlier decision of this Court in Asstt. Commissioner v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd.

[(2003) 11 SCC 405] was overruled by the Constitution Bench.In the context of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, recently a Division Bench of this Court inMadhumilan Syntex Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [AIR 2007 SC 1481], held :

"23. From the above provisions, it is clear that wherever a Company is required to deduct tax at sourceand to pay it to the account of the Central Government, failure on the part of the Company in deducting orin paying such amount is an offence under the Act and has been made punishable. It, therefore, cannotbe said that the prosecution 12 against a Company or its Directors in default of deducting or paying tax isnot envisaged by the Act.

24. It is no doubt true that Company is not a natural person but 'legal' or 'juristic' person. That, however,does not mean that Company is not liable to prosecution under the Act. 'Corporate criminal liability' is notunknown to law. The law is well settled on the point and it is not necessary to discuss it in detail."

18. Section 141 of the Act even does not provide for a mandatory minimum imprisonment. A fine can beimposed upon the offender for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act.

19. Interpretation of Section 141 of the Act came up for consideration before a Three-Judge Bench of thisCourt in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.

Neeta Bhalla and Another [(2005) 8 SCC 89] wherein it was opined that criminal liability on account ofdishonour of cheque primarily falls on the drawer company and is extended to the officers of thecompany. Analysing Section 141 of the Act, the Bench observed:

"...Section 141 of the Act is an instance of specific provision which in case an offence under Section 138is committed by a company, extends criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque to officers of thecompany. Section 141 contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extendedto officers of a company.

13 Since the provision creates criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. Theconditions are intended to ensure that a person who is sought to be made vicariously liable for an offenceof which the principal accused is the company, had a role to play in relation to the incriminating act andfurther that such a person should know what is attributed to him to make him liable. In other words,persons who had nothing to do with the matter need not be roped in. A company being a juristic person,all its deeds and functions are the result of acts of others.

8/12/2019 blawass

5/10

Therefore, officers of a company who are responsible for acts done in the name of the company aresought to be made personally liable for acts which result in criminal action being taken against thecompany. It makes every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and wasresponsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, liablefor the offence. The proviso to the sub-section contains an escape route for persons who are able toprove that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligenceto prevent commission of the offence."

[underlining is mine]

20. In Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [2006 (9) SCALE 212], this courtheld that though a person was not personally liable for the offences committed by the company, however,he would only be liable vicariously for the acts of company in terms of Section 141 of the Act only if therequisite averments, are made in the complaint petition.

advocatemmmohanADVOCATEadvocatemmmohan has written 172 posts for ARTICLES & CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES Etc.,& other courts

Judicial disposition is definitely different from a paper presented for seminardiscussion. Nor can it be equated with a dissertation. Judicial decorumrequires that judgments and orders should confine to the facts and legalpoints involved in the particular cases which judges deal with. May be,sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or even unwittingly, jut outsidethe contours of the litigation, but even such overlappings should be within thebounds of property and sobriety. But there is no justification for traversing sofar beyond the canvass as was done by the High Court in this case or to cover

areas which are grossly extraneous to the subject-matter of the case. If thesubordinate courts are also to be tempted and encouraged to follow suit bytraveling far outside the scope of the lis, the consequences would be far toomany. Demoralisation of departments would badly erode the already impairedefficiency of our forces. It is time to remind ourselves once again that

judgment should confine to the scope of the case. 16. We are unable toappreciate how this judgment helps learned counsel. Learned counselsubmits that there was no justification for the learned single Judge to gobeyond the prayer made in the writ petition, namely, with regard to adeclaration for payment of the amounts for the work done by the writ

petitioner. 17. In this context, it is important to appreciate that for thepurposes of determining whether the amounts were required to be sanctionedto the writ petitioner, it was necessary to look into the allegations made by thewrit petitioner to the effect that the amounts were not being sanctionedbecause of a demand of bribe by the appellant and also that despite thepayment of bribes to the appellant, the amounts were not being sanctioned. Itis, therefore, not correct on the part of learned counsel for the appellant to

http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/

8/12/2019 blawass

6/10

contend that the learned single Judge had gone beyond the prayer made inthe writ petition. 18. For adjudicating the prayer in the writ petition, it wasnecessary for the learned single Judge to go through the averments made inthe writ petition. There were specific averments of the writ petitioner that theappellant demanded and accepted bribes of specific amounts on two

occasions. In this context, it was necessary for the learned single Judge torender a finding on the averments made by the writ petitioner for thepurposes of grant or denial of relief to the writ petitioner. 19. Under thecircumstances, since we are not in agreement with the view canvassed bylearned counsel for the appellant, we have no option but to dismiss the appealand we do so accordingly. 20. Interim application stands dismissed.POSTED BYADVOCATEMMMOHAN05/03/2012LEAVE A COMMENT

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE W.A. No.1047 of

2011 1-2-2012 V.Lakshminarayana Varma Nallam Venkata Lakshmi and others COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Shri G. Vidya

Sagar COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Shri Y. Pulla Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 4 : G.P. for

Panchayat Raj &Rural Development Continue reading

Doctrine of defactoA.P.Bar council elections are validPOSTED BYADVOCATEMMMOHAN05/03/20122 COMMENTS

THE HONBLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR W.A. No.100 of 2012 8-2-2012 Smt. S. Jayasree The

Secretary, A.P. Bar Council Hyderabad and another COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Sri D. Venkateswarlu COUNSEL FOR

RESPONDENT NO.1: Sri G.M. Mohiuddin COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 : Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy JUDGMENT:

(per the Honble the Chief Justice Sri Continue reading

When the wife stood as guarantor for her husband debt and when shevoluntarily executed cheque for the debt of her husband, now she cannot say

that the cheque is not supported by consideration nor she is the owner of herhusbands company for escaping her liability =The above judgment in thecase of ICDS Limited was cited before the learned Magistrate, but the learnedMagistrate erroneously held that the said decision is not applicable to thefacts of the present case. The learned Magistrate further held that the secondrespondent could be able to rebut the presumption against her under Section139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There was no evidence let in by thesecond respondent nor was there any circumstance in favour of the secondrespondent justifying the learned Magistrate to hold that she could be able torebut the presumption. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ICSC

Limited even though there is no proof placed by the appellant showing thatafter the death of her husband, the second respondent herein became theproprietrix of M/s National Business Trust, she admittedly being one of theguarantors of the hire purchase agreement entered into by her husband onbehalf of M/s National Business Trust and having issued the impugnedcheque in discharge of the liability under the said hire purchase agreement isliable for punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for

http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/#commentshttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/#commentshttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/#commentshttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/#commentshttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/doctrine-of-defacto-a-p-bar-council-elections-are-valid/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judicial-disposition-is-definitely-different-from-a-paper-presented-for-seminar-discussion-nor-can-it-be-equated-with-a-dissertation-judicial-decorum-requires-that-judgments-and-orders-should-co/

8/12/2019 blawass

7/10

the dishonour of the said cheque. It is erroneous to hold that the cheque wasnot issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and thatcomplaint was not maintainable against the second respondent. The learnedtrial Court overlooked the crucial documents viz. Ex.P.4 promissory note andExs.P.5 and P.6 letters which contain the signatures of the second

respondent. There was an undertaking in Exs.P.5 and P.6 letters by thesecond respondent that she would discharge the debt/liability under the hirepurchase agreement. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by theappellant clearly established that the respondent was a guarantor under thehire purchase agreement, she undertook to repay the debt due under the hirepurchase agreement by her letters Exs.P.5 and P.6 addressed to the appellantand subsequently issued the impugned cheque towards discharge of the saiddebt/liability under the hire purchase agreement. All these facts have beenproved by the appellant positively by examining PW.1 and marking Ex.P.5 toP.7. Absolutely, there was no material before the learned Magistrate to recorda finding that all these documents have not been voluntarily executed by theappellant. If the said documents were obtained by force, fraud or undueinfluence, the burden to prove the said fact is on the second respondent. But,absolutely there was no evidence forthcoming on her behalf to prove the saidfact. The finding recorded by the learned Magistrate to the effect that thesecond respondent did not issue the cheque and execute the otherdocuments voluntarily is contrary to the evidence on record and is nothingbut perverse. This Court in an appeal against acquittal will not normallyinterfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court unless they are perverse

or not based on evidence. In this case, the interference is required becausethe findings recorded by the leaned Magistrate are contrary to the evidenceon record besides being perverse. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the

judgment dated 17.04.2006 passed by the XIV Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.No.1294 of 2001 acquitting the secondrespondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct is set aside and the second respondent is found guilty. The secondrespondent/accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for aperiod of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fineamount, the second respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one month. The appeal is succeeds and the same isallowed. __________________POSTED BYADVOCATEMMMOHAN05/03/2012LEAVE A COMMENT

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1108 OF 2006 06-01.2012 M/s Laila Finance Ltd M/s S.A.

Engineering Services and others Counsel for appellant: Sri I. Gopal Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 &2: Sri M.Subba Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Public Prosecutor ? Cases referred: 1 (2002)6 SCC 426 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is

Continue reading

http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/#respondhttp://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/author/advocatemmmohan/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/when-the-wife-stood-as-guarantor-for-her-husband-debt-and-when-she-voluntarily-executed-cheque-for-the-debt-of-her-husband-now-she-cannot-say-that-the-cheque-is-not-supported-by-consideration-nor-she/

8/12/2019 blawass

8/10

whether an authorised signatory of a company would be liable forprosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (forbrevity the Act) without the company being arraigned as an accused. Be itnoted, these two appeals were initially heard by a two-Judge Bench and therewas difference of opinion between the two learned Judges in the

interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act and, therefore, the matter hasbeen placed before us. Keeping in view the anatomy of the aforesaidprovision, our analysis pertaining to Section 141 of the Act would squarelyapply to the 2000 enactment. Thus adjudged, the director could not have beenheld liable for the offence under Section 85 of the 2000 Act. Resultantly, theCriminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2009 is allowed and the proceeding against theappellant is quashed. As far as the company is concerned, it was notarraigned as an accused. Ergo, the proceeding as initiated in the existingincarnation is not maintainable either against the company or against thedirector. As a logical sequeter, the appeals are allowed and the proceedingsinitiated against Avnish Bajaj as well as the company in the present form arequashed. 49. Before we part with the case, we must record our uninhibitedand unreserved appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the learnedcounsel for the parties and the learned amicus curiae. 50. In the ultimateanalysis, all the appeals are allowed.

Supreme Court of

IndiaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 34

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 838 of 2001

Appellant :- Sri RamRespondent :- Smt. Tulsa DeviCounsel for Appellant :- K.K.Pandey,V.Singh

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.1. Heard Sri V.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.2. This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The defendant is the mother of plaintiff and admittingher as owner of property in dispute, plaintiff instituted original suit no. 453 of 1994 seeking injunction thathe is a tenant in the building in dispute and defendant cannot evict him illegally.3. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that plaintiff was not a tenant at all but being elder sonwas permitted to stay in the building in dispute after the death of defendant's husband but he

http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/http://nayayamargalu.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/whether-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-would-be-liable-for-prosecution-under-section-138-of-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-for-brevity-the-act-without-the-company-being/

8/12/2019 blawass

9/10

subsequently became dishonest and had tried to usurp entire property and that is why a registered noticewas served upon him on 18.5.1999 for vacating the building whereupon the suit in question has beenfiled.4. It cannot be disputed that procedure adopted by defendant by issuing notice to the plaintiffs neitherunauthorized nor illegal. Rather it is a due procedure prescribed for seeking eviction of a person fromproperty in dispute. So far as status of plaintiff is concerned, issue no.1 was framed by Trial Court and ithas been returned against plaintiff-appellant holding that he failed to prove that he was tenant in theproperty in dispute. That being so, plaintiff had no right to stay in the property in dispute particularly whenhis allegation that he has sought to be unauthorized evicted from property in dispute has also been foundto be incorrect. The defendant has proceeded in accordance with law after giving registered notice uponthe plaintiff whereupon plaintiff filed the original suit. This clearly shows that there is no action on the partof the respondent which is unauthorized. On the contrary she adopted a procedure prescribed in law,which has commenced by issue of a registered notice to the plaintiff-appellant.5. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below could not be shown perverse in anymanner. It is not the case of the appellant that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or anyimpermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal orotherwise, in the judgments impugned in this second appeal. I, therefore, do not find that any substantialquestion of law has arisen in this Second Appeal warranting consideration by this Court.6. Appeal lacks me