Cheque Bounce Case - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...

Tag: Cheque Bounce Case

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case