U/s 138 r/w 141 & 142 of N. I. Act

Anup Gupta (Querist) 26 February 2011 This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
Actually I want to know if a Director (My Client) issued a Post Dated Cheque dt 20.10.2010 on 12.07.2010 on behalf of the Company as an authorized Signatory and due to some problem resigned from the Company on 17.09.2010 and his resignation was duly accepted by the Company. However, the Company has not filed form 32 for the same and on the MCA portal his name is still display as a Director. Further the said cheque dishonored on presentation. My Client received legal notice for commission of offence under section 138 of N I Act being a Director of the Company. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged cheque was signed by my client as an authorized signatory but before the date of Cheque resigned from the Company. Holder of the Cheque filed Complaint against the Company and all the Directors including my client.
Sir, My question whether my client is liable for commission of alleged offence and what remedy/defense available to protect my client.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 26 February 2011
SIR,
KINDLY NOTE THAT
1.THE SAID CHEQUE WAS ISSUED ON BEHALF OF CO.
2.THE SAID DIRECTOR RESIGNED AND CASE FILED AGAINST CO AND ALL DIRECTORS.
3.THE CO AND REMAINING DIRECTORS ARE LIABLE TO REPAY THE SAID AMOUNT OF CHEQUE TO THE HOLDER OF CHEQUE.
4BUT AS THE SAID CHEQUE WAS SIGNED BY SAID DIRECTOR OF THE CO.HENCE HE MAY FILE A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING THE SAID CASE AGAINST HIM .HE HAS TO MENTION ALL FACTS AND ALSO MAKE RESPONDENTS COMPLAINENT AND ALL REMAINING DIRECTORS OF SAID CO.GOOD LUCK.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (Expert) 26 February 2011
Quash expert mr sawant it is not possible , pl post citation if you or any body else got quash.

Please read latest SC citation posted by me where the supreme court has quashed the quash by High court.

Regarding your problem you can raise proper defense and win the case.

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Expert) 26 February 2011
face the trail seriously.

Advocate. Arunagiri (Expert) 26 February 2011
Your client is not liable to be punished. Because he has resigned after signing the cheque, but before the presentation of the cheque. However, he is having the defense only in the court.

Out of Court (Expert) 26 February 2011
I don't think y there are two antagonist opinions, rather the complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act is in read with section 141 N.I.Act, and specifically the case is not read with 420 or whatsoever section of IPC.... Since the then director issued the cheque on behalf of Co. as an obligation of service, but before presentation of of the aforsaid cheque he resigned through formal procedures, so at the very then time the then director is free from any of the acts of the company....so the liability got transferred to concerned left members having interests in the Company ...

Parveen Kr. Aggarwal (Expert) 27 February 2011
The questions involved are necessarily questions of fact and the complaint qua your client is unlikely to be quashed. However, during trial your client may prove his contentions to avoid his liability.

I agree with Mr. Shashikumar.