Judgemment
Anita Singh
(Querist) 21 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
can anybody provide me the any judgement on behalf of accused in cheque bouncing case
in my case accused no 1 is company accused no 2 is my client and accused no 3 is a partner of my client who is abscondig proclamation is pending against him and the company is already close the alleged cheque is signed by accused no 3 all the order copy for goods ,challn, purchase order signed by accused no 3 only my client has not signed any where so for that is there is any judgement to accquit him accused no 3 deal with the complainant and order the goods of which accusen no 2 who is my client had no knowldge there is a partnership deed which is in the costody of my client which i suggest no to present on the court any written format is there for written argument on behalf of the accused.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 March 2012
repeated query already replied
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Repeated query.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 March 2012
the Karnataka High Court considered this issue in the case of a complaint filed by an unregistered firm Beacon Industries v Anupam Ghosh [49] . After receipt of the complaint filed by Beacon (revision petitioner in the aforesaid case), the Trial Court at Bangalore dismissed the complaint by holding that there was a bar under section 69 of the Act and that an unregistered firm could not prosecute any person or a firm.
The High Court observed that even a plain reading of section 69(2) of the Act, left no scope for doubt that what was barred by the said section was the institution of a suit. The court further observed that enforcing a right arising from a contract or conferred by the Act and suing, as a partner in a firm against the firm or any partner in the firm would not be possible unless the firm was registered firm.
The High Court remarked that a careful reading of section 69(2) of the Act clearly showed that an unregistered partnership firm was barred from filing a civil suit, while there was no such bar so far as filing of a private complaint was concerned.
The Court noted that in the case of a bounced cheque, there was purely criminal liability on the part of the person who had issued the cheque. The Court held that even if the cheque had been issued by a partner of an unregistered firm for a legally recoverable debt and if such a cheque was dishonoured, it would amount to a criminal liability.
Thus the contract by the unregistered firm referred to in section 69(2) must not only be one entered into between the firm and the third party-defendant but must also be one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of the business dealings of the plaintiff’s firm with such third party-defen
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Sethi,
I am afraid, your citation will be of no help to the querist.
The querist does not want to maintain any complaint from the complainant's point of view, but on the other hand wants to defend from the side of the accused.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 March 2012
mr anirudh
i had already informed querist that accused no 2 will be liable as partner of firm . in said judgement karntaka high court has held that even if partnership firm is unregistered the partners would be criminally liable .
it reinforces my submission that accused no 2 would be liable as cheque has been issued by accused no 3 for nd o behalf of partnership firm
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Sethi,
The decision of the Karnataka HC is from the point whether an unregistered Firm - through its partner - can file a complaint against a third party. Sec. 69(2) is only from the point of an unregistered Partnership and not from a third party view.
In the instant case, it is not the unregistered Firm, or a partner of such unregistered firm which is trying to file a complaint against criminal liability (obviously the said firm is barred under 69(2) so far as civil liability is concerned) of a third party.
AND NOT VICE VERSA. A third party always had an unrestricted right to sue or lodge a complaint even against an unregistered Firm and its partners.
