Sec.138 of N.I.Act - Sec.141 of N.I.Act - Cheque Bounce Case - whether the respondent can be made liable in his personal capacity when the Company has not been made a party to the complaint.- Trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused as the company was not made as accused and case was filed in the personal capacity of accused - cheque was issued not for whole discharge of or part discharge of any liability - High court confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal - Apex court held that as the respondent was the Managing Director of M/s. Salvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and sole proprietor of M/s. Salvi Builders and Developers, there is no need of specific averment on the point and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. we are of the view that the respondent be made liable under Section 138 of the NI Act, even though the Company had not been named in the notice or the complaint. There was no necessity for the appellant to prove that the said respondent was in charge of the affairs of the company, by virtue of the position he held. Set aside the acquittal order and convicted the accused by imposing fine of twice with 9 % interest rather than sentencing him to prison - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS





whether  the
respondent can be made liable in his personal capacity when the Company  has
not been made a party to the complaint.

 Trail court 
The reasons given  for  the  acquittal
of the respondent were that the Company M/s. Salvi Infrastructure Pvt.  Ltd.
was not made the accused and instead the respondent was made accused in  his
personal capacity. The cheque could not be said to have been issued for  the
discharge of whole  or  part  of  the  liability  because  it  exceeded  the
liability. Further, it had not been proved that the respondent was a  person
liable to make the payment for M/s. Salvi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

  The  High  Court  by  the
impugned order dismissed  the  said  application  on  the  ground  that  the
reasoning set out by  the  Trial  Court  in  its  order  did  not  call  for
reconsideration.

Apex court held that

 About the liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, where the cheque  drawn
by the employee of the appellant company on his personal  account,  even  if
it be for discharging dues of the appellant-company and  its Directors,  the
appellant-company and its Directors  cannot be  made  liable  under  Section
138. Thus,  we  observe  that  in  the  above mentioned  case,  the  personal
liability was upheld and the Company and its Directors were absolved of  the
liability. The logic applied was that the Section itself  makes  the  drawer
liable and no other person. 
  However, as the respondent  was
the Managing Director of  M/s.  Salvi  Infrastructure  Pvt.  Ltd.  and  sole
proprietor of M/s. Salvi Builders and  Developers,  there   is  no  need  of
specific averment on the point.  
This  Court  has  held  in  National  Small
Industries Corporation Ltd.
Para 39 (v)  “If the accused is a Managing  Director  or  a  Joint  Managing
Director then  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  specific  averment  in  the
complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable  to  be  proceeded
with.”


 The Courts below have  wrongly
concluded that notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.  Act  were  sent  to
all the  Directors  of  the  Company.
 Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant
contended that such a conclusion was not supported by any evidence  inasmuch
as there was only one acknowledgment card  on  record,  showing  receipt  of
notice under Section 138(b) of the Act, by the respondent.
The Courts  below
did not appreciate that  the  accused  respondent  in  his  statement  under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. had admitted that he was  paid  Rs.74,200/-  as  earnest
money and that he had issued receipt for the  same  and  thus  there  is  no
substance in the argument of the respondent that the cheque for  Rs.74,200/-
cannot be said to have been  issued  for  discharge  of  whole  or  part  of
liability, because it exceeded the liability.

Thus, in the light of the position which the respondent in the present  case
held, we are of the view that the respondent be made  liable  under  Section
138 of the NI Act, even though the Company had not been named in the  notice
or the complaint.  There was no necessity for the appellant  to  prove  that
the said respondent was incharge of the affairs of the  company,  by  virtue
of the position he held. Thus, we hold that the respondent Vijay D Salvi  is
liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The law laid down by this Court in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby and Anr.,[3]  was  to
the following effect:



“As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly  lean  towards  grant
of reimbursement of the loss by way  of  compensation,  the  courts  should,
unless  there  are  special  circumstances,  in  all  cases  of  conviction,
uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up  to  twice  the  cheque  amount
(keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple  interest  thereon  at  9%
per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss)  and  direct  payment  of  such
amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of  restitution
in regard to the loss on  account  of  dishonor  of  the  cheque  should  be
practical and realistic, which would  mean  not  only  the  payment  of  the
cheque amount but interest thereon at  a  reasonable  rate.  Uniformity  and
consistency  in  deciding  similar  cases  by  different  courts,  not  only
increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also  the
credibility of courts of justice.”



We, therefore, award compensation to the extent of twice the  cheque  amount
and  simple  interest  thereon  at  9%  per  annum   to   the   complainant.
Accordingly, the respondent Vijay D Salvi is  sentenced  to  undergo  simple
imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence under  Section  138
of the NI Act. Considering the fact that the cheque amount  is  Rs.74,200/-,
we  direct  the  respondent  Vijay  D  Salvi  to  pay  a   compensation   of
Rs.1,48,400/- (Rupees one lakh forty-eight thousand four hundred only)  with
simple interest thereon at 9% per annum, to  the  complainant-appellant.  In
default of payment of the said compensation, the  respondent  will  have  to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more