Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 412 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - existence of debt or not - discharge of vicarious liability - suppression of notice - legally enforceable debt or not - restraint from presenting the cheques for collection - Sections 138, 141 and 142 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the complaint, there are totally four accused, in which the first accused is the company and the accused 2 to 4 are its Directors. Admittedly, the first accused is not represented by its Managing Director and represented by all of its Directors. All the cheques were issued by all the Directors separately. There is no averment to the effect that who is the signatory of the cheque and who issued cheque on behalf of the first accused. There is no specific averment as against the accused 2 to 4 to the effect that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused company. In the absence of specific allegation in the complaint in respect of the role played by the Directors and their responsibility in the conduct of the first accused business at the relevant point of time and that the offence was committed by their consent or connivance. Receipt of the statutory notice - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the notice dated 15.10.2018, the petitioners called upon the respondent to refrain from presenting the alleged cheques for payment and return those cheques. On receipt of the same, the respondent did not send any rejoinder to the reply notice dated 26.12.2018. They also failed to deny the averments made in the notice dated 15.10.2018 in the complaint. It amounts to suppression of fact - In fact, in the complaint the respondent averred that the said cheques were fraudulently issued to cheat the respondent and instructed the respondent to present the same for collection. When the petitioners categorically called upon the respondent to refrain from presenting the cheques and also return the same, the petitioners would not have instructed the respondent to present those cheques for collection. That apart, those cheques admittedly are post-dated one. When there is a dispute in respect of quality of the garments, the petitioners stopped the payment of those cheques. All the impugned complaints filed as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|