NDLI: S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1881 – ss.138 and 141 Negotiable Instruments Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case – Vicarious liability of the partners – Held: Burden is on Board of Directors or officers in charge of the affairs of the company /partners of a firm to show that they were not liable to be convicted – Existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company or the firm – Criminal liability is attracted only on those, who at the time of commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm – But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners ‘qua’ the firm – This would make them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction – Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence thereof would be acquittal. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case against Director / partner of the firm – Interference by High Court u/s.482 CrPC – Scope – Held: High Court should not interfere u/s.482 CrPC at the instance of an accused unless it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques – In a given case despite the presence of basic averments, the High Court may conclude that no case is made out against the particular Director/partner provided the Director/partner is able to adduce some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence beyond suspicion and doubt – If any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition u/s.482 CrPC on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he/she is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he/she must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his/her contention – He/she must make out a case that making him/ her stand the trial would be an abuse of process of Court – Abuse of Court. Notice – Statutory Notice – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case against a partner of the firm – No reply given by respondent-accused to statutory notice served upon her by appellant-complainant – Effect – Held: It is essential for the person to whom statutory notice is issued u/s.138 to give an appropriate reply – The person concerned is expected to clarify his or her stance – If the person concerned has some unimpeachable and incontrovertible material to establish that he or she has no role to play in the affairs of the company/firm, then such material should be highlighted in the reply to the notice as a foundation – Once the necessary averments are made in the statutory notice issued by the complainant in regard to the vicarious liability of the partners and upon receipt of such notice, if the partner keeps quiet and does not say anything in reply to the same, then the complainant has all the reasons to believe that what he has stated in the notice has been accepted by the noticee. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.141 – Difference between sub-section (1) and (2) of s.141 – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 970
Petitioner	S. P. Mani And Mohan Dairy
Respondent	Dr.snehalatha Elangovan
SCR	[2022] 9 S.C.R. 634
Judgement Date	2022-09-16
Case Number	1586

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

Please Log-in to view this content

Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. M/s. Fine Tubes

Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda

N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas

N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Paresh P. Rajda Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla

T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari

N.k. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors.

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. M/s. Fine Tubes

Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda

N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas

N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Paresh P. Rajda Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla

T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari

N.k. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors.

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan