Is a retired partner liable for cheques signed by him

Ganesh Prabhu (Querist) 06 March 2019 This query is : Resolved
Partner A and B run a firm with unregistered partnership deed from Oct 08 .Partner B swindled money and was caught on Oct 18 he accepted and retired on Jan 21 2019 by signing in registrar of firms documents but didn't sign on release deed ,on the same day partner C enters the firm. Now Partner B freezed the current account
x by giving a letter to private bank, subsequently filed an OS in city civil court for Interim and permanent injunction not to open the account for current Partners" A "and " C "and locked funds claiming he is still partner and funds should not be withdrawn, At this stage number of cheques issued by the firm signed by Partners "A "and retired Partner "B" dated before the retirement of the partner "B" are bounced in another current account of the firm " y " with insufficient funds message .Now is the retired Partner liable and be charged under 138 of NI by the cheque bearers ?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

KISHAN DUTT KALASKAR (Expert) 06 March 2019
Dear Sir,
Unless the retired partner proves otherwise is liable to answer charge under 138 of NI Act. Only an intelligent advocate defined the retired partner otherwise you will be convicted in such criminal proceedings.

Please mark “LIKE” if satisfied by my answer.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 06 March 2019
Consult local CA. Then he will examine the deeds and then consult an experienced advocate for filing case.

H.M.Patnaik (Expert) 07 March 2019
The Partner is liable for all acts and deeds made on behalf of the firm till he/she officially retires from the firm through a registered Deed. It is better to get in touch with an experienced local advocate dealing with N.I.act cases for examination of the connected documents, for the sake of proper guidance.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 09 March 2019
Show the document to a local prudent lawyer for better appreciation, guidance and proceeding.

Guest (Expert) 09 March 2019
Refer the Supreme Court Judgement on 30 th August 2017 pronounced in the case of N.Harihara Krishnan Vs J.Thomas.

Guest (Expert) 09 March 2019
Honorable Supreme Court had pronounced " In the absence of bringing an action against the Company which is drawer of the Cheque there is a grave risk that the Criminal actions against other persons such as Signatory may be fraught with difficulties ". The Supreme Court Ordered that the Company to be included in the Case.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries