Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 749 - HC - Indian LawsComplaint under Section 138 NI Act - dishonour of cheques - Summon order - whether the petitioner is jointly & severally responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the Company- M/s Sabreen & Co. as alleged by the respondent/complainant in the complaint under Section 138 NI Act? - Held that:- The Form C dated 18.01.2013 shows one Shanu Malik as a partner of the Company- M/s Sabreen & Co. and the signature on the letter dated 09.06.2011 made by the partner on behalf of the Company- M/s Sabreen & Co. resembles with the signature of the present petitioner's signature made on the petition as well as on the vakalatnama. The plea taken by the respondent/complainant is that Shanu Malik and Shahne Alam are the same person. The partnership deed placed on record is of the year 1999 and Form C is of the year 2013. There is no Form C filed by the parties for the relevant period, i.e. for the year 2011 when the alleged offence was committed. The determination of whether the petitioner was the partner of the Company- M/s Sabreen & Co. or he was responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company in presence of the letter dated 09.06.2011 would be determined after leading the evidences by the parties in the trial. Mere taking of the plea by the petitioner that he was not the partner of the Company- M/s Sabreen & Co. ipso facto does not dispels him from the alleged allegation under Section 138 NI Act. The allegations alleged by the respondent/complainant are disputed questions of fact which cannot be looked into at this stage and the onus for proving otherwise lies on the petitioner which can only be discharged at the trial. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case MOJJ Engineering Systems Ltd. & Ors. vs. A.B. Sugars Ltd [2008 (8) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] Therefore, in presence of the letter dated 09.06.2011 the plea taken by the petitioner loses its significance. Consequently, the impugned summoning order dated 29.08.2012 as well as the order on notice dated 27.11.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act (West)/Delhi in C.C. No. 3871/1 does not warrant any interference by this Court to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the present petition is dismissed.
|