Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 93 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of special leave to file appeal - Dishonor of cheque - signatories are authorised to sign on behalf of the Mukta Developers or not - presence of two signatories - HELD THAT:- The cheque clearly has a stamp as “Mukta Developers Authroised Signatory” and there are two signatures below it. The complainant has not taken any steps as per provisions of NI Act to serve notice to the firm or to other signatory. Section 142 opens with non-obstant clause and mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque and, such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arise. Proviso to section 142(1)(b) states that the cognizance of complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. There is no substance in the contention that he was not aware that cheque is issued by Mukta Developers. Thus, explanation offered for not joining accused Mukta Developers or other signatory as accused is false. There is no justification whatsoever. On the face of the cheque itself it is clear that it was drawn in favour of Mukta Developers. In view of facts and circumstances involved in the matter and provisions of NI Act the order passed by the JMFC is perfectly justified. There is no case made out to entertain the appeal - the leave to appeal is rejected.
|