Section-138 Negotiable instrument act
Vishal
(Querist) 17 July 2015
This query is : Resolved
The complainant files a case in the court under section-138 of the negotiable instrument act. He files the case against the company, directors, signing authority on the cheques & the shareholders. On the 1st date, the complainant fails to present the form-32. Hence, the court summons the company as well as the signing authority on the cheques but does not summon the directors or the shareholders. On a later date, the complainant presents the articles of association of the accused company as well as the details from the website of the mca.gov.in wherein the name of the shareholders are clearly mentioned. The complaint files an application before the court that a person who holds 90% equity shares of the company happens to be the main accused & hence he must be summoned. The court says that it has already summoned the company as well as the signing authority on the cheques & would summon this person who holds the 90% equity shares only after the complainant presents before it any case of any other court wherein the court may have issued the summon twice. Kindly help me in narrating any case study wherein the court might have issued the summon twice.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 17 July 2015
The share holders are no where liable for the legal consequences of the company.The company which is wholly and solely represented by its Directors are responsible for any legal procedures.If the complainant was mentioned the shareholders in the statutory legal notice that notice itself can be challenged regarding its validity.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 17 July 2015
Your complaint u/sec 138 of N.I.Act is not maintainable against the share holders of company.Company and its Directors are only liable for the consequences of offense of sec138 of N.I.Act.in case if on behalf of company and its Directors none presents,the court may issue bailable warrants against companies Directors.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 17 July 2015
Agree with the experts.
Case law not provided.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 17 July 2015
i am also agree with experts. share holders not responsible for the offence under section 138 N.I Act.
