Cheque bounce case against company

I’m running a small factory and in the course of my business, I used to received some cheques from companies. One of my clients committed an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Is it mandatory to give notice to all the directors of the company?

I’m running a small factory and in the course of my business, I used to received some cheques from companies. One of my clients committed an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Is it mandatory to give notice to all the directors of the company?

No need to send a separate notice under section 138 NI Act to all the directors of the company. Although directors are responsible for the affairs of the company there is no rule in the NI Act to demand the payment of cheque amount from the directors. The only company is liable, notice given to the company is just and proper.

The section 141 of NI Act states that: If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Section 138 of the said Act provides punishment which is as same as applicable in case of the offence committed by a company. The notice period is also the same and there is no provision in the Act for separate notice to all the directors in case company is the drawer of the cheque. B. Raman vs Shushan chemicals & Drugs it is held by the Madras High Court that notice should be given to all the directors.

But in Krishna Taxport company vs A. A. Agrawal AIR 2015 SC; judgment given in B. Raman case is overruled and it is now settled law that it is not required by the law to give a separate notice to all the directors of the company.

It is also unrealistic to know the name of all the directors at the time of issuance of the cheque. According to company law, a company performs its activities through the directors, the company is a separate legal entity in the eye of law for purpose of security of rights of those people who have affairs with the company.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Husband is demanding DNA test to check the paternity of our son in divorce case

The law does not permit a husband to compel his wife or child to undergo a DNA test merely on the basis of suspicion. In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Supreme Court held that a blood or DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course. Before seeking such a direction, the husband must establish a strong prima facie case by proving that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.