CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 04 KAR CK 0159

Wells Fargo Bank National Association vs H.V. Gowthama and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 18 April 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Ananda, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal P. No. 2090 of 2011 C/w Criminal P. Nos.2091 of 2011 to 2099 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 321 words

Hon''ble Mr.Justice N.Ananda

1.

Matters are listed for admission. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5 in C.C.Nos.32102/2009, 32101/2009, 32104/2009, 32108/2009, 32107/2009, 32102/2009, 32103/2009, 32105/2009, 32099/2009, 32106/2009, 32097/2009 pending trial for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner M/s. Wells Fargo Bank is a company registered under the Companies Act and it can not be a Director of first accused M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., The averments of complaint, accepted at their face value do not bring petitioner within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge should not have issued process to petitioner.

3.

The learned Counsel for respondents would submit that petitioner is a shareholder of M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., and is a nominee Director and there are averments in the complaint to fasten vicarious liability on petitioner.

4.

I am not pursuaded to accept submissions of learned Counsel for respondents. Even if it is assumed that petitioner is a shareholder of a company registered by the Companies Act, petitioner can neither be a nominee Director nor a Director of M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., The petitioner is a company registered in Hongkong. The petitioner cannot be a Director or nominee Director M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is the drawer of the cheque in question. Therefore, complaint averments accepted at their face value do not bring petitioner within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to fasten vicarious liability on petitioner. The learned trial Judge, without appreciating these facts has issued process to petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is accepted. The impugned proceedings as they relate to petitioner herein (accused No. 5 before the trial Court) are quashed.