Director or Authorized Signatory of a company cannot be prosecuted in complaint case under section 138 NI Act if the company has not been arrayed as party in the case. : Supreme Court of India

  

Latest news March 29, 2019 912

Director or Authorized Signatory of a company cannot be prosecuted in complaint case under section 138 NI Act if the company has not been arrayed as party in the case. : Supreme Court of India

Latest Judgments

(Equivalent Citation:- I (2019) SLT 635) I (2019) BC 365 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. & Hemant Gupta, J.

HIMANSHU—Appellant

versus

B. SHIVAMURTHY & ANR.—Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2009—Decided on 17.1.2019

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 141 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Dishonour of Cheque — Offence by Company — Liability of authorised signatory — Record before Court indicates that cheque was drawn by the appellant for Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., as its Director — Notice of demand was served only on appellant — Complaint was lodged only against appellant without arraigning company as an accused — In absence of company being arraigned as accused, complaint against appellant was not maintainable — Appellant had signed cheque as a Director of company and for and on its behalf — In absence of a notice of demand being served on company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, High Court was in error in holding that company could now be arraigned as an accused — Complaint quashed — Directions.

(Paras 10, 11, 12)

Result : Appeal disposed of.

Cases referred :

1. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, II (2012) BC 638 (SC)=III (2012) SLT 417=II (2012) DLT (CRL.) 315 (SC)=II (2012) CCR 195 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 7)

2. Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N. Metalics, VI (2015) SLT 21. (Relied)

(Para 8)

3. MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, IV (2012) BC 272 (SC)=VII (2012) SLT 198=193 (2012) DLT 90 (SC)=IV (2012) DLT (CRL.) 138 (SC)=IV (2012) CCR 143 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 9)

4. N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, IV (2017) BC 215 (SC)=VII (2017) SLT 71=III (2017) DLT (CRL.) 960 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.—A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was instituted by the respondent against the appellant. According to the complainant, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- “for his business development” and on the same day, the appellant issued a cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hosadurga for an equivalent amount. When the cheque was presented on 26 December, 2003 for encashment to the State Bank of Mysore, Beligere Branch, the Bank returned the cheque with an endorsement on 29 December 2003 stating that funds were insufficient. The complainant issued a notice to the appellant on 19 January, 2004 which was served on 28 January, 2004.

2. Upon the failure of the appellant to pay the amount due under the cheque, a complaint was instituted.

The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tiptur took cognizance on 6 July 2004 and issued summons to the appellant.

3. The appellant instituted a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) before the High Court of Karnataka. Paragraph 6 of the petition states the ground on which the jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked.

“6.

The cheque was issued by one of the directors of M/s Lakshmi Cement and Industries Ltd., i.e., on behalf of said company. The said company was public limited company and in order to demonstrate the said fact, the accused herewith produces copies of the memorandum and articles of association of the company along with the certification of incorporation of the company and which are marked as ANNEXURE C1, C2 AND C3 respectively.”

In paragraph 7, the appellant averred thus:

“7. …

The complainant approached the learned Magistrate with a request to take cognizance against the accused stating that the accused on 23.12.2003 had issued a cheque in his favour and the said cheque was bounced on 26.12.2003 on meticulously going through the cheque dated 23.12.2005 it discloses that the cheque was issued by one of the directors of the company and that was not a cheque issued by any person in his individual capacity. If that is accepted the complaint should have been against the company and its Directors and not against the Accused.”

4. The appellant submitted that the cheque was issued by a Director of Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., a public limited company. In other words, the cheque was not issued by the signatory in his personal capacity. Hence, it was urged that the complaint ought to have been instituted against the company and its Directors and not against the appellant.

5. The High Court by its order dated 24 January, 2006 dismissed the petition. The High Court rejected the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the complainant had pleaded ignorance about the existence of the company. Moreover, in the view of the High Court, it would not be difficult for the complainant to take steps to proceed against the company as well as against other persons who are responsible for the affairs of the company.

6. The judgment of the High Court has been questioned on two grounds. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that firstly, the appellant could not be prosecuted without the company being named as an accused. The cheque was issued by the company and was signed by the appellant as its Director. Secondly, it was urged that the observation of the High Court that the company can now be proceeded against in the complaint is misconceived. Learned Counsel submitted that the offence under Section 138 is complete only upon the issuance of a notice of demand and the failure of payment within the prescribed period. In absence of compliance with the requirements of Section 138, it is asserted, the direction of the High Court that the company could be impleaded/arraigned at this stage is erroneous.

7. The first submission on behalf of the appellant is no longer res integra. A decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, II (2012) BC 638 (SC)=III (2012) SLT 417=II (2012) DLT (CRL.) 315 (SC)=II (2012) CCR 195 (SC)=(2012) 5 SCC 661, governs the area of dispute. The issue which fell for consideration was whether an authorized signatory of a company would be liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without the company being arraigned as an accused. The three Judge Bench held thus:

“58.

Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words “as well as the company” appearing in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a director is indicted.”

In similar terms, the Court further held:

“59.

In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself….”.

8. The judgment of the three-Judge Bench has since been followed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N. Metalics, VI (2015) SLT 21=(2015) 15 SCC 768. There is merit in the second submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant as well. The proviso to Section 138 contains the pre-conditions which must be fulfilled before an offence under the provision is made out. These conditions are: (i) presentation of the cheque to the Bank within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (ii) a demand being made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the Bank of the return of the cheques; and (iii) the failure of the drawer to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

9. In MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, IV (2012) BC 272 (SC)=VII (2012) SLT 198=193 (2012) DLT 90 (SC)=IV (2012) DLT (CRL.) 138 (SC)=IV (2012) CCR 143 (SC)=(2013) 1 SCC 177, this Court held thus :

“12.

The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person issuing the cheque.”

The importance of fulfilling these conditions has been adverted to in a recent judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, IV (2017) BC 215 (SC)=VII (2017) SLT 71=III (2017) DLT (CRL.) 960 (SC)=(2018) 13 SC 663. Adverting to the ingredients of Section 138, the Court observed as follows:

“26.

….Obviously such complaints must contain the factual allegations constituting each of the ingredients of the offence under Section 138. Those ingredients are: (1) that a person drew a cheque on an account maintained by him with the Banker; (2) that such a cheque when presented to the Bank is returned by the Bank unpaid; (3) that such a cheque was presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date it was drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (4) that the payee demanded in writing from the drawer of the cheque the payment of the amount of money due under the cheque to payee; and (5) such a notice of payment is made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the information by the payee from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid...”

10. In the present case, the record before the Court indicates that the cheque was drawn by the appellant for Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., as its Director. A notice of demand was served only on the appellant. The complaint was lodged only against the appellant without arraigning the company as an accused.

11. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in-charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.

12. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.

13. We, accordingly, are of the view that the High Court was in erorr in rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

14. We hence allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. In consequence, the complaint, being C.R.P. No. 27/2004 shall stand quashed.

15. During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court on 28 November, 2008 recorded the statement of the appellant that he was willing to deposit the entire cheque, and hence issued the following directions:

“Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is willing to deposit the entire cheque amount which was dishonoured in this Court.

Let the amount be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today and on deposit of the amount within the aforesaid period, Registry to issue fresh notice to the respondent as respondent is not represented till date. The amount, so deposited, shall be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank initially for a period of six months and may be kept renewed from time-to-time until further orders.”

16. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- on 23 February, 2009. The amount has been invested in a fixed deposit which has been renewed periodically.

17. In our view, having regard to the intent of the order which was passed by this Court on 28 November, 2008, it would be appropriate and proper if the amount deposited in this Court, together with accrued interest, is paid over to the respondent-complainant.

18. The Registry shall, accordingly, issue a communication to the respondent intimating a copy of the present order (since the respondent has not appeared despite service of notice. The amount shall be disbursed to the respondent against proof of identity.

The criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Appeal disposed of.


Get in Touch

IN

PANKAJ KUMAR & CO.

(1) Chamber No. 1104, Rohini Court, Delhi-110085 (India)
(2) Chamber No. T-25, 1st Floor, Tehsil Lane, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-110054 (India)
(3) Chamber No. 111, Lawyers' Chamber, Saket Court, New Delhi (India)
(4) Lawyer Chamber, Dwarka Court, New Delhi (India)


Contact Us Now
8800543454 | 9871083454

advpk1@gmail.com

Category : CONSULTANTS


Timings
MON :
TUE :
WED :
THU :
FRI :
SAT :
SUN :

Write to Us


Write to Us


DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PITAMPURA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN PASCHIM VIHAR
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYERS IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATES IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CRIMINAL LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 5 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 3 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN MODEL TOWN
DIVORCE LAWYER IN ASHOK VIHAR
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 9 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN ALIPUR
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NARELA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER
ARBITRATION LAWYER
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER/ADVOCATE
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE
BEST CIVIL ADVOCATE
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER/ADVOCATE
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST HIGH COURT LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST HIGH COURT ADVOCATE IN DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL APPEAL LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN PASCHIM VIHAR
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN PRASHANT VIHAR
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN MODEL TOWN
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE/LAWYER
BEST MAINTENANCE CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
BEST CHILD CASE CUSTODY LAWYER IN PRASHANT VIHAR
BEST 498A LAYWER IN ROHINI
BEST 498A ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST 498A LAYWER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST 498A ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER DELHI
DELHI HIGH COURT LAYWER
DELHI HIGH COURT LAWYER FOR DIVORCE CASE
PARTITION CASE LAWYER
DELHI HIGH COURT LAWYER
BEST CIVIL LAWYER
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER IN ROHINI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN ROHINI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BUSINESS LAWYER IN ROHINI
BUSINESS LAWYER IN DELHI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE LAWYER IN ROHINI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE ADVOCATE
EVICTION SUIT LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN SAKET
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DWARKA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SAKET
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SAKET
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER
BEST FAMILY COURT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
AFFORDABLE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
APPEAL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CIVIL SUIT LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
NRI DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
DOWRY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
DOWRY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYERS IN DELHI
DIVORCE ADVOCATES IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST LAWYER IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATE IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATES IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATE IN SOUTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SOUTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NORTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN WEST DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
EXPERT DIVORCE LAWYER
EXPERT DIVORCE LAWYERS
BEST LAWYERS
BEST ADVOCATES
BEST ADVOCATES IN DELHI
BEST LAWYERS IN DELHI
BEST LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST FAMILY LAW LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY LAWYER IN DELHI
FEES OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN DELHI
FEES OF MUTUAL DIVORCE IN DELHI
PROCEDURE OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN DELHI
PROCEDURE OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN INDIA
EXPERT DIVORCE ADVICE IN DELHI
EXPERT DIVORCE CASE ADVICE IN NEW DELHI
EXPERT DIVORCE OPINION IN NEW DELHI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN DELHI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN ROHINI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
EXPERT DIVORCE CASE LAWYER
BEST DIVORCE CASE LAWYER
BEST DIVORCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI NCR
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN NCT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI NCR
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN INDIA
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN ROHINI
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN SAKET COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN KARKARDOOMA
CHEQUE BOUNCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
ARBITRATION LAWYER IN DELHI
ARBITRATION CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
PROPERTY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
PROPERTY CASE ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST ALIMONY LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST BUSINESS DISPUTE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT BUSINESS DISPUTE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT BUSINESS ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SAKET
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DWARKA DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN KARKARDOOMA COURT DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PATIALA HOUSE COURT DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NORTH DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SOUTH DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
SERVICE MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI
WRIT MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
WRIT MATTER LAWYER IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CIVIL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CRIMINAL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
COMPANY LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
ADVOCATE FOR DRT IN DELHI
ADVOCATE FOR NCLT IN DELHI
FAMILY MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
LAW FIRM IN DELHI
LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN ROHINI COURT
BEST LAW FIRM IN DELHI HIGH COURT
BEST LAW FIRM IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN SOUTH DELHI
BEST CORPORATE LAW FIRM IN DELHI
Divorce Law Firm in India
Property Lawyer in Delhi
Lawyer for NRI
Property lawyer for NRI
Best Property Lawyer for Foreign Client
Best NRI Lawyer
Best Divorce Lawyer for NRI
Best Divorce Lawyer for Foreigner
Best Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer In Delhi
Best Law Firm in Delhi
Best Property Law Firm in Delhi
Best Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Best Divorce Lawyer in India
Affordable Lawyer for Mutual Divorce in Delhi
Affordable Lawyer for Divorce in Delhi
Affordable Divorce Lawyer in Tis Hazari
Affordable Divorce Lawyer in Rohini Delhi
Expert Divorce Lawyer in Rohini Delhi
Expert Divorce Law Firm in Delhi
Best Cheque Bounce Lawyer in Delhi
Best Cheque Bounce Law Firm in Delhi
Best Business Dispute Law Firm in Delhi
Best Commercial Dispute Law Firm in Delhi
Divorce Lawyers In Delhi
Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer in North Delhi
Child Custody Lawyers in Saket
Divorce Lawyer in Model Town
498A Lawyer in West Delhi
Domestic Violence Lawyer in Rohini
Child Maintenance Lawyer in Pitampura
Annulment of Marriage Lawyer in Rohini
Civil Case Lawyer in Pitampura
Property Case Lawyer in Paschim Vihar
Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer in Paschim Vihar
Divorce Lawyer in Karkardooma
Mutual Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Specialist Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Expert Child Custody Lawyer in Delhi
Insolvency Lawyer in Delhi
Bankruptcy Lawyer in Delhi
Top Commercial Lawyer in Delhi
Divorce Advocate in Rohini
Top Divorce Advocate in Rohini
Top Child Custody Lawyer in Rohini
Top Dowry Case Lawyer in Rohini
Top Child Custody Lawyer in Rohini
Cheque Bounce Case Advocate in Rohini
Top Business Case Lawyer in Rohini
Commercial Case Lawyer in Rohini
Advocate for Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
Lawyer for Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
Best Lawyer for Divorce in Delhi
Best Lawyer for Divorce in Saket Court
Expert Lawyer for Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
Expert Lawyer for Child Custody Case in Delhi
How to Win Divorce Case
Know about Divorce case
Process of Mutual Consent Divorce
Process of Contested Divorce
How to Fight Dowry Case in India
False Dowry Case
498 A IPC
Anticipatory Bail in Dwory Case
Criminal Lawyer in Delhi
Top Criminal Lawyer in Delhi
Top Civil Lawyer in Delhi
Expert Business Lawyer in Delhi
Fraud Case Lawyer in Delhi
Bail Lawyer in Delhi
Lawyer for Criminal Case in Delhi
How to get Bail in Criminal Case
Criminal Case Advocate
Best Lawyer for Criminal Case
Rohini Court Lawyer for Criminal Case
Lawyer for Criminal Case in Tis Hazari
Divorce Lawery in Tis Hazari Court
Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer in Tis Hazari
Lawyer for Cheque Bounce in Delhi
Partnership Case Lawyer in Delhi
Cheque Bounce Case
Rohini Court Civil Lawyer
Advocate in Rohini Court
Top Lawyer in Delhi
Online Divorce Laweyr in Delhi
Lawyer for NRI Case in Delhi
NRI Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Top Laweyr for NRI in Delhi
NRI Child Custody Case
NRI Case Lawyer in Delhi
Lawery for Civil Case in Delhi
Rohini Court Advocate for Divorce
Tis Hazari Court Civil Case Lawyer
see more

8800543454

Contact PersonWhatsApp Us
Get DirectionGet Direction
You may prefer to call at our phone number for quick legal advice.
X

Welcome to PANKAJ KUMAR & CO.

Want to know more about us.