Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque was issued by and on behalf of the firm - Notice issued about the dishonor of cheque - after completion of Trial - pending the case A2 died on 2-12-2006 - Trail court dismissed the complaint against the A1 firm and A2 as abated and after hearing the A 3 and A4 dismissed the case on merits - Whether Firm A1 too abated when it was represented by A3 and A4 other partners ? for the purpose of imposing fine of double the amount, the death of A2 does not abate the firm as other partners can continue the firm on the death of one of the partner as per law - Remanded the matter to decide the case on the point whether the firm dissolved or not with reference to the D-1 partnership deed already exhibited, from death of A-2 one of the partners and if not dissolved for nothing to abate to decide the liability of A-1 firm though not A-3 representing A-1 firm personally liable, to the liability of imposing fine against the firm in the event of the debt is proved legally enforceable - 2015 A.P.msklawreports

the Complainant is a merchant and doing
cotton business, A-1 is cotton merchant, A-2 to A-4 are its partners .                                                      they used to purchase cotton from several persons like complainant on credi
from 12.06.1998 onwards accused are
maintaining khata with the complainant in the course of their
business, that the said Khata is running and mutual
As per the khata
the accused has to pay an amount of Rs.4,89,655/- to the
complainant as on 05.12.2000 and the complainant demanded the   
accused several times to pay the said amount, that the accused gave
cheque for Rs.4,76,552/- and the same was when presented returned 
The complainant issued a statutory legal notice and the
accused got issued reply and did not pay the amount, for which the
complainant presented the complaint.

The trial Court recorded that the case against

Accused Nos.1 and 2 was abated on 05.12.2006, for death of A-2 who 
was representing A-1 firm and after hearing both sides and after
perusal of material and evidence on record, the trial Court held the
other two partners of the firm A-3 and A-4 not guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
accordingly they were acquitted for said offence.
High court held that 
Thus, the trial Court ought not to have recorded the
proceedings against A-1 firm as abated, but for recording A-3 being
one of the partners on record to represent A-1 firm and once, A-1
firm is there on record, though not liable for imprisonment of A-3
representing A-1 firm, fine can be imposed to recover for not
exceeding double the value of the cheque amount. 
In particular for,
either from P.W-1 cross-examination or from D.W-1 evidence with
reference to Exs.P-1, P-4, P-9 and P-10, there is not much in dispute
of Ex.P-1 cheque issued by the firm duly signed by A-2 as its
authorised partner to make the firm responsible for the dishonor as
firm was also served with notice under Ex.P-4 acknowledged by A-2 in
his individual capacity also under Ex.P-5 and P-6 apart from A-3 and
A-4 under Exs.P-7 and P-8 acknowledgements referred supra.  
To that
extent as act of Court shall prejudice no man not sanctioned by law,
the matter requires remittance for re-trial to decide fresh, the
liability of A-1 entity by setting aside the trial Courts observation of
the prosecution against A-1 is abated from death of A-2 for still A-3
partner of A-1 firm continuous on record though as observed by the
trial Court and uphold by this Court, A-3 personally not made liable
equally A-4; A-1 if at all to be made liable being a firm to represent
by other partners for the reason of A-3 as partner of the firm on
record to represent A-1.  

   In the result, while upholding the trial Courts acquittal
judgment of A-3 and A-4, however by setting aside the recording of
abatement of the prosecution against A-1 firm by remitting the
matter to the trial Court for re-trial in directing to decide afresh by
arraying A-3 as representing A-1 firm as one of the partners for
continuation of the prosecution of A-1 firm to decide whether the
firm dissolved or not with reference to the D-1 partnership deed
already exhibited, from death of A-2 one of the partners and if not
dissolved for nothing to abate to decide the liability of A-1 firm
though not A-3 representing A-1 firm personally liable, to the liability
of imposing fine against the firm in the event of the debt is proved
legally enforceable.2015 A.P.msklawreports


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.