• Cumulative liability 138 N I Act

Amounts mentioned herein are for example and for the sake of understanding: 

In the Complaint, the Complainant stated that he had paid Rs.1000 to A1 (Company), Rs.200 to A2 (Managing Partner) and Rs.200 to A3 (Partner) and his friend had paid Rs.300 to A1. Total Rs.1700.00.

Amount paid to the A1 (Company) by Complainant and his friend was towards acquiring share in the firm and Amount paid to A2 and A3 was towards Goodwill consideration. The Complainant didn’t fulfil the entire consideration/goodwill, differences cropped and the Complainant and his friend wanted to withdraw from the partnership firm.

An MOU was entered between A1 rep by A2 as 1st party and Complainant and his friend jointly rep as 2nd Party. A1 had agreed to repay Rs.1500.00 as settlement within 3 months and issued a blank cheque of the bank A/c of A1, in case of failure to repay within 3 mts, the 2nd Party can use the cheque for the pending amount. A3 is not at all involved in executing the MOU or deliberations and issuing of blank cheque.

As per the MOU, both the Complainant and his friend are the joint beneficiaries of the amount realized through the MOU. A1 company could only pay the part amount Rs.400 to the Complainant. A2 had requested the Complainant for two months for the balance amt of Rs.1100.00. Complainant did not accept and filled the blank cheque in his favour for Rs.1100.00 and presented the same which was returned as Payment Stopped by the Drawer. The Complainant had issued a legal notice to A1 with A2 & A3 as co-accused, stating that he had paid a total amount of Rs.1700.00 and as per the understanding, a cheque for Rs.1100.00 has been issued by the accused towards repayment which was returned.

A1 replied to the stating that the Complainant had paid Rs.1000.00 only and his claim that he paid an amount of Rs.1700.00 to A1 is false. A1 didn’t issue the Cheque for Rs.1100.00 and Complainant had misused the blank cheque by filling the date, beneficiary and amount. A3 had also issued a reply notice that he is in no way connected with the matter as he is not a signatory of the MOU, Cheque or the deliberations.

Individually the Complainant had paid an amount Rs.1000.00 to A1 company and he admitted that he had already received Rs.400.00 from the A1. Hence the net due amount would be Rs.600.00 only whereas, he had filled the blank cheque for Rs.1100.00 in his favor.

Now the Questions are:

1. Whether the Complainant is eligible to claim the total cumulative dues from A1, A2 and A3 as legally enforceable debt through the single Cheque belonging A1 company?

2. Whether individual transactions between the Complainant and A2 & A3 can be clubbed with the liability of A1 company as by making them as Co-Accused?

3. Whether amount paid towards Goodwill is legally recoverable? 

4. Whether the Complainant is eligible to claim the amount receivable by his friend as well, without making him as a party to the Cheque, Legal Notice and the Complaint?
Asked 4 years ago in Criminal Law
Religion: Hindu

Ask a question and receive multiple answers in one hour.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

8 Answers

1. If A1, 2 &3 are the partners of the company and the cheque was issued by the company then the company and the partners are liable for cheque amount. 

The A3 is also vicariously liable for the payment of cheque amount being one of the partners. 

2. The company cannot be held liable for the transactions pertaining to the partners in their individual capacity with others. 

3. It depends on the terms of agreement between the disputing parties. 

4. If there's no legally liable debt that is to be recovered by the complainant then the case will not be maintainable. 

You cannot file the case on behalf of your friend. 

 

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
89988 Answers
2493 Consultations

- As per Supreme Court , all the partners in a firm could not be liable for the offence of issuing a cheque which was dishonored 

- Further, Section 141 does not make all partners liable for the offence. The criminal liability has been fastened on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm.

1. The complainant cannot claim dues from all the Partners , except the partner who has deal with the complainant. 

2. No 

3. This depend upon the agreement dully entered with the complainant and the company. 

4. Without sending legal demand notice the complainant cannot recover the amount under the N.I. Act. 

Mohammed Shahzad
Advocate, Delhi
15814 Answers
242 Consultations

1) he cannot claim total dues through single cheque 

 

2) individual transactions cannot be clubbed 

 

3) complainant cannot claim amount receivable from his friend as well 

 

4) complaint under section 138 NI is not maintainable 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
99786 Answers
8145 Consultations

1. Yes 

2. Only if they are done in respect of the day to day affairs of the said company

3. Yes

4. No

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
34522 Answers
249 Consultations

1) complainant can rely upon MOU 

 

2) it is for the trial court to decide whether it is admissible in evidence or not 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
99786 Answers
8145 Consultations

If the complainant is different to the person who has entered into the reported MOU, then this deed of MOU may not be relevant nor it would be maintainable. 

If MOU has no relevancy to the complaint then the question of A3's retirement doesn't arise nor there's any necessity to drag the MOU into the trial proceedings. 

The friend of the complainant is a third party to cheque bounce case hence he cannot be impleaded as party to the case. 

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
89988 Answers
2493 Consultations

1. It can be treated but will not be of great evidentiary value. 

 

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
34522 Answers
249 Consultations

- Since A3 is retiring partner ,then he is not responsible for the payment of the cheque amount 

- Further, as the complainant is also a partner then in this way he cannot accused other partners if the cheque is a part of the firm. 

- Yes, the MOU can be treated as supporting document .

- Further , as the friend is third party , then he cannot be implicated. 

Mohammed Shahzad
Advocate, Delhi
15814 Answers
242 Consultations

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer