সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
In the case of Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. M/s. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCC 103, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India elucidatedly held that in case of proprietorship concern, it is only the proprietor who can be held liable under Section 138 of NI Act, on account of the fact that proprietorship concern has no separate legal identity. A sole proprietorship firm would therefore not fall within the scope and ambit 3 of 10 of Section 141 of NI Act. The para as relevant to the present case reads thus:-
"It is settled position in law that the concept of vicarious liability introduced in Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted only against the Directors, partners or other persons in charge and control of the business of the company, or otherwise responsible for its affairs. Section 141 of NI Act not covers within its ambit, the proprietary concern. The proprietary concern is not a juristic person so as to attract the concept of vicarious liability. The concept of vicarious liability is attracted only in the case of juristic person, such as the company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or the partnership firm registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, 1932 or association of persons which ordinarily would mean a body of persons which is not incorporated under any statute. The proprietary concern stands absolutely on different footing. A person may carry on a business in the name of the business concern being proprietor of such proprietary concern. In such case the proprietor of proprietary concern alone can be held responsible for the conduct of business carried in the name of such proprietary concern. Therefore, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have no applicability in a case involving the offence committed by a proprietary concern."
High Court of Delhi in the case of M. M. Lal vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (4) JCC 284, held thus:-
"It is well settled that a sole proprietorship firm has no separate legal identity and in fact is a business name of the sole proprietor. Thus, any reference to sole proprietorship firm means and includes sole proprietor thereof and vice versa. Sole proprietorship firm would not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 141 of the Act, which envisages that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time of offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Company includes a partnership firm and any other association of individuals. The sole proprietorship firm would not fall within the meaning of partnership firm or association of individual. Thus, in the case of a proprietorship concern, only the proprietor can be held liable under Section 138 NI Act as the proprietorship concern and the proprietor are one and the same."
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
