RAJ LAKSHMI MILLS Vs. SHAKTI BHAKOO
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 08,2002
RAJ LAKSHMI MILLS
Appellant
VERSUS
SHAKTI BHAKOO
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
R L TOSHNIWAL VS. TNDO RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2003-2-84] [REFERRED]Pankaj Narang VS. State [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN AGGARWAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
G S Saluja VS. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
J N BHATIA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-143] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK NEWATIA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN AGARWAL VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
HPS INDIA P LTD VS. SREI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2004-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
A MURALI MOHAN VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
T MURLIDHAR VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
CHHEDI LAL GUPTA VS. SURESH DAMANI [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
BIBEK RAYCHAUDHURI VS. VIRAMA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KASTURI LAL [LAWS(SC)-2004-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SARAN AGRAWAL VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-208] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIK KIRTIBHAI PAREKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA DIXIT VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
M S BANGA VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
A K GOENKA VS. MAGMA LEASING LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEZ ALAM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
MYMOONATH BEEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KARTHA D RAVINDRANATH KARTHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
NISHITKUMAR SWAIKA VS. HAZARIMAL MISHRILAL BAFNA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL TAPARIA VS. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
M V KHADILKAR VS. GOYAL IRON AND STEEL CORPN [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GUJABRAO BHOYAR VS. YEOTMAL ZILLA PARISHAD KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT YEOTMAL [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN SINGH VS. OSWAL STEELS CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN MEHROTRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2004-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ AGRAWAL VS. M.P. FINANCE DEPARTMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
NILAM DEVI BAGARIA VS. VIMAL KR. TODI [LAWS(GAU)-2004-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR SUMAN VS. SHIV SHANKER ASSOCIATES [LAWS(J&K)-2006-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent as well as her brother-in-law Anoop Bhakoo under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act because of dishonour of a cheque which had been issued by M/s Sutlez Knitwears of which Anoop Bhakoo and the respondent were partners. Against the summoning order passed by the magistrate, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Crpc after the respondent's application for discharge was unsuccessful.
(3.)The High Court invoked the provisions of Section 141 of the negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that as the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business, therefore the order summoning her was bad in law.
(2.)The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent as well as her brother-in-law Anoop Bhakoo under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act because of dishonour of a cheque which had been issued by M/s Sutlez Knitwears of which Anoop Bhakoo and the respondent were partners. Against the summoning order passed by the magistrate, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Crpc after the respondent's application for discharge was unsuccessful.
(3.)The High Court invoked the provisions of Section 141 of the negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that as the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business, therefore the order summoning her was bad in law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.