Dismissed

Sant Kumar Katiyar v. Anil Katiyar

Allahabad HC15 May 2023A227/2028/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Article 227 rejected the argument that a sole proprietor must be impleaded as the firm in cheque-bounce cases. The court held that notice to the proprietor constitutes notice to the firm, rendering separate impleadment unnecessary. Petitions were dismissed as no substantial question of law or fact arose.

What did the court decide?

Present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are dismissed.

Sant Kumar Katiyar Vs Anil Katiyar — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106442

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2028 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sant Kumar Katiyar Respondent :- Anil Katiyar Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Vashisth,Jitendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Vikram Singh,Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh

¶5

Connected with

¶6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1668 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶7

Respondent :- Anil Katiyar

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Vashisth,Jitendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Damodar Singh,Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh,

¶9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2118 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶10

Respondent :- Anil Katiyar

¶11

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pratap Singh,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Vikram Singh,Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh,

¶12

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2119 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sant Kumat Katiyar Respondent :- Anil Katiyar

¶13

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Vashisth,Jitendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh.

¶14

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶15

Heard Mr. Sunil Vashisth, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Devendra Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for complainant respondent.

¶16

Short counter affidavit filed by Mr. Devendra Vikram Singh in matter under Article 227 of No. 2028 of 2023 (Sant Kumar Katiyar Vs. Anil Katiyar) in Court today is taken on record.

¶17

All these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relate to the same parties and raise common question of law and fact.

¶18

The genesis of the dispute between the parties is that there is proprietorship firm namely Messrs. Om Brick Field. The cheques in dispute were issued by the proprietor of the aforementioned proprietorship firm namely Sant Kumar Katiyar. However the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds.

¶19

Resultantly, the complainant gave a notice to the applicant in terms of Section 138 N.I. Act. However in spite of receipt of notice, the applicant failed to make the payment payable under the disputed cheque. Resultantly the following cases under Section 138 N.I. Act came to be registered:-

¶20

(i) Complaint Case No. 619 of 2017, Anil Katiyar Vs. Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶21

(ii) Complaint Case No. 620 of 2017, Anil Katiyar Vs. Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶22

(iii) Complaint Case No. 615 of 2017, Anil Katiyar Vs. Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶23

(iv) Complaint Case No. 619 of 2017, Anil Katiyar Vs. Sant Kumar Katiyar

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the liability is of the firm and as the proprietorship firm has not been impleaded as an accused in the complaint filed by the complainant opposite party 2, therefore the complainant itself is no maintainable. To buttress his submission he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2008 decided on 27.4.2023.

¶25

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Devendra Vikram Singh, the learned counsel representing complainant opposite party 2 have vehemently opposed these petitions. They submit that the principles laid down in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2008 decided on 27.4.2023 are not attracted in the present case as the firm is a

¶26

sole proprietorship firm and accused Sant Kumar Katiyar is the sole proprietor of the firm. They, therefore, submit that notice to the proprietor is notice to the firm. As such no material difference is made even if the firm has not been impleaded as an accused in the complaint. On the above premise, they contend that no question of law and fact is involved in these petitions and therefore same are liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶27

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could not overcome the.

¶28

As a result, present petitions fail and are liable to be dismissed.

¶29

These are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Aiman

¶31

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sant Kumar Katiyar v. Anil Katiyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Kumar Katiyar v. Anil Katiyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Omkar Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Sant Kumar Katiyar Vs Anil Katiyar

Sanjay Tyagi Vs State of U.P.