NI 138 Quashing

Here are the few judgements for  NI 138 Quashing

  1. On deposit of cheque amount along with interest @ 18% Pa from the date of cheque till date of payment the proceedings under 138 NI act was quashed. Dalmia Resorts Pvt Ltd V Deepak Gupta (2002)98 DLT 181
  2. When there was no averment in the complaint about petitioners, accused nos. 3 to 5 being in charge for conduct of business of accused no.1 company for the offence under NI. 138 NI act committed with their consent or connivance.
Image result for ni 138

Shailender tiweri V. Meenakshi Anhal III (2002) BC 462

  1. Where cheque was issued by a partnership firm, but cheque in question was neither issued nor signed by the petitioner and nothing was in the complaint to show that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of business of company, complaint and summoning order against the company quashed. Anurag Mehra V. SD. Traders IV (2010) BC 211(212-214)(P&H).
  2. Once the first complaint was dismissed in default, filing of 2nd complaint can never postpone the period of limitation or cause of action, the second complaint is liable to be quashed. If barred in time. Dilip Kumar Patra V. Jayant Kumar  Mohanty III(2002) Bc 455.
  3. The notice under provisio (b) of section 138 was not sent within 15 days of receipt of information about dishonor of cheque in bank. Nathu Singh Gangarde V jaswant singh (2002)2 MPHT 180
  4. The accused did not function as chairman and director of accused company during the period when cheques were drawn SB Shankar V. Amman Steel Corp. II 2002 BC 351.
  5. The complainant gave incorrect cheque numbers which according to complainant have been taken back and fresh cheques were issued. Kumar rubber industries V. Sohan Lal II 2002 BC 467 (P&H).
  6. When accused neither signatory and nor in charge of day to day work of the firm. P Dhamodharan V. Palini Andavari Mills Ltd. (2002) 108 Comp cas 873.
  7. When non- payment of cheque was neither wilful nor wanton on the part of accused company or its managing director but only due to bank order passed by the BIFR under section 22 A of sick industrial companies (special provisions Act) 1985 Kusum Ignots and alloys V. pennar Petersons securities Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 745.
  8. The letter issued by the complainant bot to the drawer company of the cheque but to another concerned to make payment failing which the matter shall be referred to legal department, which cannot be contemplated under clause(b)  of section 138.
  9. The material alteration done on the cheques of the year 1995 into 1996.
  10. When employee of a company issued cheque in his individual capacity, he alone is the drawer; so proceedings against the company are liable to be quashed Kitex garments Ltd. V Ajay Kaushik I(2002) BC 388
  11. When accused is sleeping partner. Shakti Bhakoo V. Raj Lakshmi Millls I(2002) Bc 401(P&H)
  12. The accused retired from the partnership 3 months prior to the issuance of the cheque. B. hambhu Kumar V. Raghvendra steels Ltd I(2002) BC 438 MAD.
  13. Accused not named in the complaint nor averment made to cover under 142 NI act. Charanjit Singh V. DB merchant Banking Services Ltd. I(2002) BC 489
  14. When accused is proprietorship which is not a legal entity SK Real estate V. Sk Krishnamoorthy I(2002) BC 491
  15. The cheque is dishonored as it did not bear the signature of managing director or company seal. Managing Director Jindal Paraxair Oxygen Co. Ltd. V Assistant commissioner entry tax I(2002) BC 582.
  16. Complaint filed for recovery of time barred debt. Satish Kumar Mor Vs, MV Rajeswara Rao. III(2007) BC 5 AP

Add Comment

Required fields are marked *. Your email address will not be published.