LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Anil Kumar Gupta   17 November 2016

Cheque bounce notice u/s 138 nia

I need help with regard to filing of noitice under 138 NIA.  In case notice is serve to director of company only and not to company, is this notice is legally valid??  Again alternatively notice to director of a company serve as notice to company??



Learning

 6 Replies

Zoheb Khatri (Practicing in Mumbai ZohebKhatri@gmail.com)     18 November 2016

Notice needs to send to alll known Directors as well as to company.

Regards,

ZohebKhatri@gmail.com

Anirudh Gupta (Advocate)     22 November 2016

The position under Section 141 of the Act can be summarized thus: (i)�If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix �Managing� to the word �Director� makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company.(ii)��In the case of a Director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of Section 141.However it is sufficient if the notice has been served to MD of the company.

Anirudh Gupta (Advocate)     22 November 2016

The position under Section 141 of the Act can be summarized thus: (i)�If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix �Managing� to the word �Director� makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company.(ii)��In the case of a Director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of Section 141.However it is sufficient if the notice has been served to MD of the company.

ramesh samudrala   20 December 2016

can any boyd post about the new circular details about validity of a cheque 3 months does it mean 90 days or more 


(Guest)

Notice will be served to all the direcotrs and the KMPs of the Company. mainly managing direcotr/the manager or the CEO or the signing authority will be held responsible for the same. You can make all the persons party who are displaying on the website of MCA.gov.in

 

Regards,

ramesh samudrala   21 February 2017

if notice is served onthe company and the authorised person is engough i think


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register