Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Company for Dishonoured Cheque Due to Non-Drawer Status. Liability Not Attributed to Non-Drawer as Cheque Issued from Personal Account, Not Company Account.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between an agro-based company and a respondent company regarding the distribution of prawn feed. The respondent approached the appellants for distribution, but the venture was unsuccessful, leading the appellants to discontinue dealings and settle outstanding dues. Subsequently, a cheque issued by K. Balashankar Reddy, an employee of the respondent, was dishonoured, prompting the respondent to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellants contended that they had no account with the bank and that the cheque was issued from Reddy's personal account, thus challenging the maintainability of the complaint against them. The High Court dismissed their petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the complaint could be maintained against individuals who were not the drawers of the cheque. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 138, emphasizing that liability under this section applies only to the drawer of the cheque. The court concluded that the appellants could not be held liable for the dishonour of a cheque issued by a third party, allowing the appeal and quashing the complaint against the appellants. The court directed that any bail bonds of the appellants be discharged immediately.

Headnote

A) Negotiable Instruments - Dishonour of Cheque - Maintainability of Complaint - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The court held that a complaint under Section 138 is not maintainable against a person who is not the drawer of the cheque, as the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the drawer. The Appellant Company and its Directors were not liable for the dishonour of a cheque issued by a third party, thus quashing the complaint against them (Paras 9-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is maintainable against a person who is not the drawer of the cheque.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the complaint against the appellants, and directed that any bail bonds be discharged immediately.

Law Points

  • Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • Section 138
  • maintainability of complaint
  • liability of drawer
  • dishonour of cheque
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (SC) (07) 95

Criminal Appeal No. 1357 of 2010

2010-07-28

Altamas Kabir, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma

Siddharth Dave

P.J. Agro Tech Limited & Ors.

Water Base Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal regarding dishonour of cheque and maintainability of complaint.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to quash the complaint filed against them.

Filing Reason

Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheque.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the appellants' petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint.

Issues

Maintainability of complaint under Section 138 against non-drawer Liability of company and directors for dishonoured cheque

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that they were not the drawers of the cheque and had no account with the bank. Respondent contended that the cheque was issued to settle dues of the company.

Ratio Decidendi

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against individuals who are not the drawers of the cheque, as liability is strictly construed under the provisions of the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant No.1 herein is an agro-based company having varied interests in providing feed supplements, vaccines etc. The cheque which had been dishonoured may have been issued by the Respondent No.11 for discharging the dues of the Appellant No.1 Company and its Directors to the Respondent No.1 Company. The proceedings in such matters are in personam and cannot be used to foist an offence on some other person.

Procedural History

The appellants received a notice under Section 138, replied denying liability, were served summons, challenged the complaint in High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Bona Fide Requirement Eviction Case — High Court's Reversal Set Aside for Misreading Pleadings. Landlord's bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for joint family including brother-in-law's fami...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Impleadment of Legal Heir as Defendant in Property Suit. Necessary Party Must Be Heard Before Decision on Title Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.