Addition of party in cheque bouncing case u/s 138

No,in cheque bounce cases it is mandatory to issue notice to accused person u/s 138(B) of N. I. Act within 30 days from cheque return memo here in your case,you didn't issue said notice to person whome you want to implead as accused.Now you can not implead him.

YOUR WHOLE COMPLAINT IS DIFFICULT TO BE SURVIVED IN COURT. Directors will be acquitted by saying that they were no information about the cheque issued by its officers. 

But its directors respobsibility to discharge liability of company and authority to sign by somebody on behalf of company is after passing resolution by directors. Onus will be on them to show how complainant cannot be a holder in due course.

But its directors respobsibility to discharge liability of company and authority to sign by somebody on behalf of company is after passing resolution by directors. Onus will be on them to show how complainant cannot be a holder in due course.

Originally posted by : Jitendra Ahuja
	But its directors respobsibility to discharge liability of company and authority to sign by somebody on behalf of company is after passing resolution by directors. Onus will be on them to show how complainant cannot be a holder in due course.

 

Apparently, even with your far more superior intellectual capacity, you have not been able to understand even the basic requirment of the question, i.e., making the staff (signatory) as party in addition tot he company concerned.

 

Mr jigyasu when u dont know the law so kindly shut up stop interfering. Read the law, understand it and then talk.

Mr jigyasu when u dont know the law so kindly shut up stop interfering. Read the law, understand it and then talk. Dont make any post a gossip topic.

Originally posted by : Jitendra Ahuja
	Mr jigyasu when u dont know the law so kindly shut up stop interfering. Read the law, understand it and then talk. Dont make any post a gossip topic.

 

@ Jitendra Ahuja,

First try to learn what actually is the basic requirement of the problem, then learn ABC of the law relevant to the issue, only then talk about knowledge of others about law. Even otherwise, law cannot be a personal property of only the lawyers like you. Even a layman can be more knowledgeable than a qualified lawyer. I can prove at least about you.

Your own knowledge about law, what you call your far more superior intellectual capcity, can duly be noticed by one and all of the readers from your reply to this very simple problem.

The querist asked, "Can We make the staff party mid way in the trial," but you talked about the "resolution by Directors" and the "holder in due course" by making the following reply:

"But its directors respobsibility to discharge liability of company and authority to sign by somebody on behalf of company is after passing resolution by directors. Onus will be on them to show how complainant cannot be a holder in due course."

 

 

@jigyasu. I am not here to justify to layman and exempted category ppl. Take the advise or leave it. First read, understand and preach rather than blabering

@exempted category is to jigyasu@anonymous

Originally posted by : Jitendra Ahuja
	@jigyasu. I am not here to justify to layman and exempted category ppl. Take the advise or leave it. First read, understand and preach rather than blabering

 

@ Jitender Ahuja,

When you have decided to advice on the problem of some layman at this forum, you are supposed to lawfully justify your advice for the satisfaction of not only that layman, but also the other laymen readers. Otherwise, you can squarely be held responsible for misguiding the public, even being a qualified lawyer, that tends to breach of their faith they could pose on the advising person.

 

Originally posted by : Jitendra Ahuja
	@exempted category is to jigyasu@anonymous

 

@ Jitender Ahuja,

You can avoid replying my questions by assuming me as of exempted category, but even in that manner you prove your own far more inferior intellectual capacity than mine by avoiding reply to my genuine questions on your wrong advice, may that have been given to someone else.

 

Jumping Jack, In case of companies, the details about Signatory may not be known if he is a non-director. The MD or/and chairman of the company can be made accused, Signatory director can be made accused, for all other directors the complainant must assert in the complaint about their involvement. In this case Signatory is some non director manager, he is not made party, but he must face the music. So please file an application under S.141 of NI act and S. 319 CRPC. Talk to your lawyer, he will frame it suitably.

Moxit Shah, pl do not give unsubstantiated advice.