Summons on sec 138

Dear Naveen,

Could you clearly explain this :-

" and now he has issues summons to my mother as she was the signatory on the cheque"

becase reply required by you  from us is completely depends upon this only. 

Mr Ahmed, thanks for your reply.

The summons have been sent by a court which I supposed is based on a complaint registered by Mr B. I haven't seen the summons as yet as it was sent to the firm's address and we haven't yet accepted it. 

Hope that clarifies. 

Many thanks

Dear Naveen,

Tell me whether ur mother had signed as designated signatory or in person?

DEAR NAVEEN,

PLEASE LET US KNOW ABOUT THE CHQ WHEN IT GAVE TO A,HER CAPACITY  AS OF THE SIGNATORY ETC.,

Mr Buddhiraja, Mr Reddy, thanks for your reply.

I think it was in the capacity of a designated signatory.

I am sure the bank account was in the name of the Firm for which she was a signing authority apparently.

WETHER SHE IS STILL CONTINUEING AS SIGNTORY OR WHEN SHE OUT FRM THE FIRM

To my knowledge, she has not explicitly resigned from the firm but, the firm itself has been dissolved now. Just to add a little more background (if it helps) when the firm was started , my mother was told, she will be the one of 3 directors with 2 other cousins and she will be signing authority along with the Managing Director (who is my uncle). I believe the summons have been issued to both my mother and my uncle as the cheque has their signatures on it. 

Dear Naveen,

Your multiple queries ae now coming to some contradicts: -   

" About a year ago she had signed on a blank cheque with no date on them."

" I think it was in the capacity of a designated signatory."

" I believe the summons have been issued to both my mother and my uncle as the cheque has their signatures on it "

Further, neither you trying to metion all the facts step by step and clearly,  nor you are fully sure about what you are saying; as,  

" I am trying to find out about the date of cheque of submission and all those things to see "

Therefore, as per me, First Try to collect all the correct informations, then come to us for correct and helpfull suggestion, otherwise it will be difficult us to guide you also.  

DEAR NAVEEN,

PLEASE NOTE::

Dear Naveen,

Don't worry  tell me all facts clearly, your mother got only summons, she should apear in the court  on  date which is on summons along with advocate & release on bail.

If your has signed cheque before one year, whether counter part is with you mother?. If your mother proved that she haven't given in the name of B, then  there is good case of acquittal.

hi naveen,

the cheque in question was given as a surety to Mr. A, and not to Mr.B. Therefore there is no legal laibility created. the cheaque was given by mr a to mr b for payment of his debts. there is no transaction between your mother and Mr.B.

Need not worry, no liability on your mother towards B.

Appear in court and fight. good case inhand, and if properly present shall win. i endorse views of mr. A Patil.

no notice was served on ur mother? no reply given of these facts? ur mother has to face trial. lawyer has to prove liability of ur mother during trial.

 Cheque was signed by your mother as a director of a firm. Then she alongwith other partners and the firm cannot escape prosecution. What is of paramount importance is:

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.

Go to a lawyer. The information that you provide you is too sketchy for such a serious matter.