HIMANSHU versus B. SHIVAMURTHY & ANR.

HIMANSHU versus B. SHIVAMURTHY & ANR.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a director alone, without the company being named as an accused, is not maintainable. The High Court erred in rejecting the petition under Section 482 CrPC and holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused, especially without compliance with the notice requirements under Section 138.

Parties
Appellant: Himanshu; Respondent: B. Shivamurthy; Company: Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Vicarious Liability, Maintainability of Complaint, Quashing of Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr PC
Negotiable Instruments Criminal Law Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Vicarious Liability Maintainability of Complaint Quashing of Proceedings Under Section 482 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Himanshu

Appellant

B. Shivamurthy

Respondent

Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd.

Company

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable against a director without the company being arraigned as an accused
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in holding the company could now be arraigned as an accused and rejecting petition under Section 482 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a director alone, without the company being named as an accused, is not maintainable. The High Court erred in rejecting the petition under Section 482 CrPC and holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused, especially without compliance with the notice requirements under Section 138.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Complaint quashed