Co-signatory of a dishonored cheque
SKM (User)
(Querist) 27 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
I resigned from the partnership of a company on 31/3/2007 but a vendor had a cheque of previous date of December 2006 which he submitted to his bank on 30th May,2007(Much after I left)as the time limit then for the cheque was six months. After the cheque was dishonored due to shortage of funds in an account which I was not maintaining, he has filed a case u/s 138 making me a party. How can I absolve myself when I have all the documents of dissolution of partnership deed and affidavit of the partner who has taken over as a proprietor.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 27 May 2015
Is it a registered firm?If so contents of the deed?When was UR resignation accepted?If the partnership firm was dissolved why should U resign? As a partner U will be liable for all the transactions done during the existence of the firm.The concerned bank of the firm should have been informed about the dissolution and the account closed.The vendor has every right to file a case under NI Act.U have to fight evidencing UR merits as the case is maintenable in the court.
SKM (User)
(Querist) 27 May 2015
No, the firm was not registered. The partnership was not dissolved as a matter of fact but I retired as a partner and I have a communication faxed to the concerned bank of my status as of retiring partner, but the account was taken over by the ruling partner who operated the bank thereafter in the capacity of a proprietor.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 27 May 2015
The procedure U have adopted to come out is not correct to escape liability.Mere fax is not sufficient to delete UR name from the firm's account.
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2015
Your query seems to be quite vague. You have nowhere stated about the case --
1) How and when the 2006-cheque 9 years old case cropped up now in the year 2015?
2) What is the present status of the case and what you have done in the case so far?
3) What is the reason, you have put this question now in 2015?
4) What is the opinion of your own lawyer or the firm's lawyer?
ADV-JEEVAN PATIL, MUMBAI
(Expert) 27 May 2015
I agree with my friend Sainath n further add that u cannot absolve from liability while cheque was issued n firm was existing in existance even if firm was dissolved subsequently.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 30 May 2015
1. Submit your reply to the questions raised by expert Sh. PS Dhingra ji.
2. If it was an unregistered partnership firm (unlimited liability of partners) where you were one of the partners, your liability remained intact during continuation of your partner in the firm and any act done during this period you are equally liable.
3. Did you issue any public notification (through newspapers) that you intend to retire from partnership with effect from such and such date and shall not be liable for any act/action of remaining partners after the date? If not, you remain/ continue to be liable. How does the public/ creditors/suppliers/stakeholders come to know that you are going to retire from the partnership firm?
4. The subject cheque is about 7-8 years old(as stated by you)and the case u/s 138 NI Act is coming up in the year 2015???? It is strange and unbelievable.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 30 May 2015
CTS cheques have come into force from May 2014 dispensing with the earlier MICR cheques.
Cheque 8 yrs old is an MICR cheque only. Hence it is not valid in the year 2015.At the conclusion I hereby state that the entire query is nothing but imaginary.
Guest
(Expert) 30 May 2015
The querist has not tried to reply my questions. That makes somewhat clear, either the author of some book or the teacher or the querist has not tried to modify the pretty old academic query, or the querist is a law student, but is relying only on old editions of law/guide books.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 30 May 2015
Rightly assessed by Dhingraji,better to conclude here itself
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 04 June 2015
Agreed with the experts. You can challenge the case properly if it is real.
SKM (User)
(Querist) 05 June 2015
I have noted all comments. The advertisement was given in the newspapers. The sitting partner had also given an affidavit to take care of all cheques issued earlier and replace with single signatory cheques. The case was filed by the complainant in 2007 May but the summons could never reach me as the case was in Mumbai. Now due to recent change in law, the complainant has re-filed in Delhi and made me the co-accused. This is the present status of the case and is due for hearing in July.
