Calcutta HC rules that omission to name trade name in NI Act proceedings not fatal; proprietor is personally liable for cheques issued.
The Calcutta High Court has held that a proprietary concern does not constitute a separate legal entity distinct from its owner. Consequently, the omission to array the trade name of a proprietorship as an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act is not fatal to the prosecution.
The court emphasized that the proprietor bears personal liability for all business obligations, including dishonour of cheques issued in the course of business. Naming only the proprietor suffices for maintaining proceedings, as the firm cannot independently incur liability.
This decision reaffirms settled jurisprudence under commercial law and aids prosecution efficiency in cheque bounce cases. Legal practitioners should ensure accurate identification of parties in NI Act complaints, focusing on the individual behind unincorporated entities.
