In Brief
Siby Thomas, an accused in a Section 138 cheque dishonour complaint filed by M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd, sought quashing of the complaint. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court found the issue of his retirement from partnership prior to cheque issuance to be a matter of evidence, the complaint lacked mandatory specific averments required under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act to establish vicarious liability. Mere statements that an accused was a partner responsible for day-to-day conduct were insufficient; the complaint must specifically aver that he was in charge of and responsible to the company for business conduct at the time of the offence. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint against Siby Thomas.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.