Notice to Directors II

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Appellant-Director [Himanshu] cannot not be prosecuted for a Company-Issued, Director-Signed Cheque Bounce without Company [M/s. Lakshmi Cement and Industries Ltd.] being named/arraigned as an Accused.

Three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada, (2012) 5 SCC 661 governs area of dispute. Three-Judge Bench has since been followed by a Two-Judge Bench in Charanjit Pal Jindal vs. L.N. Metalics, (2015) 15 SCC 768.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, [Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2009].

_____

In instant case, Complainant has proceeded against Two Partners without arraigning their Partnership Firm as an Accused. A Partnership Firm is not really a Legal Entity, separate and distinct as a Company is from its Directors, but can have a legal persona only when it is considered along with its Partners. Even in absence of a Partnership Firm being named as an Accused, if Partners are proceeded against, Complaint is still maintainable.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5706 of 2024] decided on 14.07.2025.

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.