# In the matter of Dipanjan Bhattacharjee vs. Shantilal Jain & Sons HUF

> HC judgment dated 2025-04-03. Citation: TCN-2025-HC-00025. The case involves a petition filed by Dipanjan Bhattacharjee to quash a criminal proceeding against…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 3 Apr 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-HC-00025
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/dipanjan-bhattacharjee-vs-shantilal-jain-sons-huf-bd9c21b5

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed by Dipanjan Bhattacharjee to quash a criminal proceeding against him related to a dishonored cheque. The complaint case, CN 673 of 2021, was filed under sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The allegations stem from a short-term accommodation loan of Rs. 26 lakhs taken by Prakriti Eminent Heights LLP, where Bhattacharjee was a designated partner. The complainant, M/S Shantilal Jain & Sons HUF, alleges that the cheque issued for repayment was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Bhattacharjee contends that he was not responsible for the day-to-day business affairs of the LLP and that the loan was obtained and the cheque was issued by another partner, Manish Kakrania, without his knowledge or consent.

## Facts

In July 2018, Prakriti Eminent Heights LLP, through accused no. 2, approached M/S Shantilal Jain & Sons HUF for a short-term accommodation loan of Rs. 26 lakhs. The loan was provided via RTGS on August 2, 2018, with an agreed interest rate of 14% per annum payable quarterly. The accused persons paid interest for two quarters. Subsequently, a cheque (no. 982918 dated January 1, 2021) for Rs. 26 lakhs, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., was issued but dishonored due to 'fund insufficient'. The cheque was signed by Manish Kakrania, a partner and authorized signatory. A notice under section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was issued on April 22, 2021. Dipanjan Bhattacharjee, another partner of the LLP, was also implicated in the complaint. Bhattacharjee argued he was not involved in the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the complaint sufficiently demonstrates the vicarious liability of Dipanjan Bhattacharjee, …

**Ratio:** The legal principle applied is that for a person to be held vicariously liable under

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the complaint lacked specific details about Bhattacharjee's role

…

**Interpretation:** Section 141 of the N.I. Act is interpreted to require specific allegations in

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by noting that the complaint did not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** AJOY KUMAR…
- **Appellants:** Dipanjan Bhattacha…
- **Respondents:** Prakriti Eminent…; M/S Shantilal…

## Timeline

- **2018-07-01 — Loan Appli…**: Prakriti Eminent Heights LLP approached M/S Shantilal Jain & Sons HUF for a short-term…
- **2018-08-02 — Loan Disbur…**: M/S Shantilal Jain & Sons HUF provided a loan of Rs. 26 lakhs to Prakriti Eminent Heights…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/dipanjan-bhattacharjee-vs-shantilal-jain-sons-huf-bd9c21b5