LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

B PARAMESWARAN (Head Legal)     05 December 2011

Section 138 ni act

My Company "A" gave a loan to one  "X".  Was holding a Post dated Cheque.  Before due date of cheque, my company "A" merged / amalgamated with another Company "B"  under High Court order.  On due date, cheque was presented and dishonoured.  Legal Notice u/s 138 NI Act was issued by Company "A" , i.e by . the Company before merger.  Based on this notice, complaint was filed by Company B, the merged entity.  The accused is taking the plea that notice issued by Company "A" being a notice issued by a Comapny which is already liquidated, i.e. by a Company not existing, is a invalid notice.  My plea is, the Cheque was drawn on "A" (i.e. payeee was "A") hence notice was issued by A in compliance with (a) to (c) of 138 NI Act.  Pl advise what is the course of line I should take in this issue.  Is there any judgement to support my case?



Learning

 3 Replies

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     05 December 2011

The plea of the accused is baseless.

 

Whenever any merger happens, the new entity takes over all assets and liabilities, that means even the debts recievables.

 

Stick to it. This objection would be dismissed.

 

 

Regards,
 
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Devendra singh jhala (Lawyer)     13 May 2012

I agree with Mr. Kapoor.

application filed only for delay of process. 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     13 May 2012

Yes the accused plea is right. There are many more pleas than only notice.

There is no law that company taking over even under HC order also takes over criminal proceddings .

We have won a case against ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND who had taken over ABN AMRO BANK last week only.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register