138 NI ACT case

 Company cheques and individual cheques fall in different categories. 

Supreme Court judgement in Neeta Bhalla's case is the Bible and company cheques must satisfy the following criteria:

(a)      It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.

(b)       The answer to question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases.

(c)       The answer to question (c) has to be in affirmative. The question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating      act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section 141.

In personal capacity  the drawer of the cheque & in case of  cheque is issued by company the directors of company sec.141 there are so many judgement  of  SC

 The Aurangabad Bench of Mumbai High Court, in a landmark judgement on 29/11/2009, opined that no case u/s138 can be filed by a money lender without obtaining Money Lenders Licence.

 Please download the judgement.

Anish ji,

Goodevening

Please cleared a Jurisdiction under 138 N.I.Act,

Suppose Cheque Issue in lucknow and complaint deposited a chq in mumbai for clearing but chq, return .and complaintant file a case in mumbai under section 138 n.i.act and accused issue a chq in icici bank, lucknow.

Which jurisdiction are correct lucknow or mumbai

please clarified