pkm
30 August 2009 at 14:59
In K.K. Ahuja Vs V.K. Vora & Anr. Hon’ble Supreme Court had given decision on July 06, 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. act. The judgment is reproducing below. Hon’ble court has defined vicarious liability under section 141 sub sections (1) & (2).In the para 6 of the judgment, as per section 141 (2) signatory of the cheque is liable though he may not be Director of the company. He may be an employee of the company performing his duties. The decision is quite elaborative. In my opinion the hon’ble court has failed to clarify on one aspect viz. what will be the position of an employee if after issuance of cheque, the Managing Director or Senior Authority instructs the bank to “Stop Payment” the cheque.
The basic question is whether employee is liable under section 138 on cheque signed by him on behalf
of the company, when the said cheque is instructed for “Stop Payment” by the Managing Director or the Senior Authority of the company after issuance.
If the answer is in affirmative, whether this is not against the natural justice to an employee. Because
for the act of senior authority a junior employee is liable & the senior employee is exempted under the section 138 of N.I.act. If junior employee is liable along with Managing Director whether this is not a channel through which another case like “ satyam” can be created. Whether industrial growth of India will not hamper if employee do not sign the cheque ?
I will be happy if expert opinion is given on the above point. The said judgment is as follows ;
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1130-31 OF 2003
K.K. Ahuja ... Appellant
Vs.
V.K. Vora & Anr. ... Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
The question as to who can be said to be persons "in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the business of the company" referred to in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave by a complainant.
2. The appellant filed two complaints (Crl. Comp.No.58/2001 and59/2001) in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against M/s.Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. (`the Company' for short) and eight others under section 138 of the Act. The first complaint was in regard to dishonour of five cheques (each for Rs.5,00,000/-, all dated 28.2.2001). The second complaint was in regard to dishonour of three cheques (for Rs.3 lakhs, 3 lakhs and 10 lakhs dated 31.10.2000, 30.11.2000 and 20.12.2000 respectively). The cheques were alleged to have been drawn in favour of the appellant's proprietary concern (M/s Delhi Paints & Oil Traders) by the company represented by its Chairman. In the said complaints, the appellant had impleaded nine persons as accused, namely, the company (A-1), its Chairman (A-2), four Directors (A-3 to A-6) as also its Vice-President (Finance), General Manager and Deputy General Manager (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively). In the complaint the complainant averred that "at the time of the commission of offence, accused 2 to 9 were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused No.1" and that therefore they were deemed to be guilty of offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also alleged that respondents 2 to 9 were directly and actively involved in the financial dealings of the company and that the accused had failed to make payment of the cheques which were dishonoured. In the pre-summoning evidence, the appellant reiterated that accused 2 to 9 were responsible for the conduct of d
kiran
30 August 2009 at 13:53
At present I am working in private and can not study as a regular law student. But, I intend to pursue Law course from an open university and become an advocate? Later, i came to know that students with law degree from open university are not eligible for enrolment?
Now, I want to know whether I can study LLB (3 years Course) from Annamalai university and become full-time advocate later?
vedant
30 August 2009 at 12:08
Dear Sir,
I have comp.my llb n joine in llm (BLaw)
but i have no idia about gujrati books in
Blaw so pls guide me as soon as posibal
thanks all
vedant
A Truthseeker
30 August 2009 at 09:17
Gandhiji spake "India lives in village". the majority of us do not know about our legal rights. when our person or property is violated we yearn that the wrong doer would be punished but most of the crime do not even come to light. the Govt. has taken measures to check the health of general public by establishing rural hospitals. we have now legal services authrity at every subdivisional court.can people be served like doctors?
DEEPAK AGRAWAL
30 August 2009 at 07:14
Can somebody tell me whether an illegally constituted Managing Committee in a Group Housing Society, registered under Delhi Co-operative Act, can conduct Elections of the Managing Committee of the same society AND ALSO GET ELECTED IN THE ELECTED MANAGING COMMITTEE. (OUT OF 7 MEMBERS OF THE ELECTED MANAGING COMMITTEE, 5 MEMBERS PERTAIN TO THE PREVIOUS ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED MANAGING COMMITTEE)
Also in such a case will the elections of the society will be set aside and fresh elections should be conducted.
G. ARAVINTHAN
30 August 2009 at 06:58
X's wife died in due to snake bite.
X made a claim to the insurance company
Insurance company, for want of all original documents, making 'X' to pillar and posts, delaying the claim.
X fulfilled all the requirements and visited the office of Insurance company several times
Now two years gone, not even a single paise given to X.
What is the remedy for X?
Consumer Forum is defunct in many towns of Tamilnadu?
ABU FATEH
30 August 2009 at 05:15
Sir
Subject: Wrongful Buy-Back of shares by STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA)LIMITED
in 2002.
As per the letter sent by STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED in late June 2002,I had came aware to caution of buy-back scheme by the aforesaid company.Instinctly I was NOT interested in favor of the buy-back and was deliberating on the same.
In the meanwhile I was keeping ill health and encountering some personal family issues and travelling.But I did sent the option form along with the cheque on 21st June 2002.
I had NOT encashed the cheque and had returned the same. In late August I got a balance from my DP, The Stock Holding Corporation of India (SHCIL), stating clearly the debit of my shares, 190, directly from Demat A/c.I was much surprised at this. When I inquired, I got the remark that it was confirmed under some corporate actions.
Immediately I wrote a letter to the erstwhile Registrar, Sharepro Services demanding the explanation. For this I never got any correspondence. Further I stated
explanation from my DP, but they asked to refer to the company. It was, again, in December 2002 I got a cheque towards the settlement of share purchased by the company.
(Details of my DP and Demat A/c.
DP: The Stock Holding Corporation of India (SHCIL).
I was much irritated! They never explained the correct context. Again I wrote to the RTA, Sharepro Services. With no response in a month I was much piqued. Again I wrote to the RTA.On the contrary I got TWO cheques, ONE for the redemption of the NCD (non-convertible debenture), part of the scheme-of-arrangement of the buy-back offer, and the interest warrant too.
As in the spirit to point my TRUE concerns and get Justice I rejected that too and wrote a letter corroborating the same along with un-enchashed cheques.
Later I didn’t like the response from the RTA of the company. I made calls to the then secretary; Mr. Kahndalvala.He just promised that the RTA shall respond to me the sooner. Mean while I also wrote to the SHCIL.Besides that I wrote to the SEBI.
After ALL this I got the first response from the Sharepro Services along with new cheques.
In that they mentioned that they didn’t receive my Option form by the deadline of 21st June 2002.
Straight away I felt infuriated, at this concept of sending the cheques and NOT indulging into the core of the matter or proper explanation.
It was then that I escalated the matter and issued a Legal Notice to the company along with copy to SEBI.
Again the explanation and the text of the letter were same, with further issue of fresh cheques to settle the matter.
I never accepted ANY of the cheques and never encashed the same.
This was in tandem to my spirits waiting for justice.
Again when I started to correspond, the RTA changed to Karvy Computershare Private Limited.
This time when I wrote an email to Karvy, unearthing the same matter, I did come to know about the stir made by the Bombay High Court case of buy-back scheme of Sterlite Industries against the SEBI and even the ranks of Union of Government (India).
Also I came to know that the court ruling did provide for something,” safety-net" and had extended the last date by approx. 4(four) months.
The company never sent any communication for this! Also if this was the case then my exercise of Option form with return and further rejection of cheques becomes perfectly valid.
Above all, the company should have given priority to me for my exercise of NOT yielding to the buy-back of my shares.
But ALL the while neither did the company secretary nor did the RTA inform of ANY such developments.
Is this NOT a case of ill intensions (of the company) against the determined intentions (No encashment/rejection of cheques) of simple and true investors?
Under this context, the RTA and company should have NOTED that as per my Option form and subsequent rejection of cheques the debit of shares is legally wrong and NOT furnishing with full and correct i
prerna oberoi
30 August 2009 at 02:18
what's better from career point of view financially aswell as in growth terms:
a)doing C.S simultaneously with law??
or
b)doing ll.m from U.K in IPR after completing law??
prerna oberoi
30 August 2009 at 02:07
what's better from career point of view financially aswell as in growth terms:
a)doing C.S simultaneously with law??
or
b)doing ll.m from U.K in IPR after completing law??
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Cancellation of Marriage certificate
Hi My name is vineeth,three years back i was in love with a girl, after that we got breakup, Now to my shock she showed a marraiage certificate saying that we both are married
In that certificate my address and her adress are not existing at all, but she has registered it with by 10th and birth certificate as proof (as said by her), I didnt beleive this intially but the
Marraige is registered and i could see the entry in one of the goverment site also, Orginal certificate is with that girl and she is not willing to give divorce on mutual concert
Please advice is there any option to file a fraudlent case so that I can free from her