Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Naveen Kumar Versus M/s HV Warehouse LLP and others

2015 (12) TMI 1293 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- In the instant case, it is submitted that evidence has already been concluded before the trial Court and the case was at the stage of recording statements of petitioner and other co-accused named in the complaint, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is specific averment in the complaint that on the representation of the petitioner and other coaccused, the MOU was signed. The mere fact that the cheque .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ompany for the conduct of its business. All these facts will be evaluated by the trial Court on the basis of evidence on record. The petitioner has not come up with any explanation as to what prevented him from filing the revision against the order dated 06.10.2012 vide which he was summoned to face the trial and against the order vide which he was served with notice of accusation. He preferred this petition at a very belated stage when the evidence had already been concluded by the complainant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt : Mr. D. Hasija, Advocate SURINDER GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide which the petitioner along with respondents No.2 to 4 was ordered to be summoned by the trial Court. Complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed by respondent No.1 against Poonam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limited and its Director-respondent No.2 Rajesh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be refunded at the time of transfer of total land by the complainant firm to the accused persons. The accused persons gave a counter guarantee cheque bearing No.622140 drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dharuhera Road, Rewari to the complainant company. The said cheque was to be presented by the complainant firm without notice to the accused persons in case of any delay or default on their part. They also issued a post dated cheque bearing No.622141 dated 24.03.2012 for ₹ 2 crores draw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vour of the complainant firm which include the amount of ₹ 21 lacs plus interest and charges amounting to ₹ 9 lacs. Later on, when cheque No.622141 was presented for encashment on 12.06.2012 and it was dishonoured. The cheque No.622146 dated 03.05.2012 for ₹ 30 lacs was also presented for encashment but it was also dishonoured by the bank. After fulfilling the required formalities, instant complaint was filed. The petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint inter-alia plead .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(v) In reply to the legal notice served on the petitioner by respondent No.1, he had replied and clarified his position; (vi) The dispute pertains to the MOU dated 19.01.2012 to which petitioner is neither a signatory nor a party. Referring to the resignation letter (Annexure P-2), learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner had resigned as Director of M/s Poonam Super Multi-Specialty Hospital Private Limited on 29.03.2011 and on the same day, his resignation was accepted vide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on record. The complainant has concluded its evidence before the trial Court. The case is fixed for statement of accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short). Against his summoning order, the petitioner has not filed any revision. He has not challenged the notice of accusation served on him, rather has cross-examined all the witnesses examined by the complainant. It was at the very late stage, when case was fixed for recording statements of accused under Section 313 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d is incharge and responsible for the conduct and business and day to day affairs of the company along with other Directors. The resignation, if any, submitted by the petitioner was never brought to the notice of general public or necessary intimation was given to the Registrar of Companies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Saumil Dalip Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2002 AIR (Bombay) 194 and has argued that after the resignation by the petitioner, it was the duty of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It was on the basis of said documentary evidence that the Bombay High Court quashed the order of attachment of property of the Director for recovery of the payable amount by M/s Arihant Agro Products Limited. The observations in the said citation are, in no manner, applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, it is submitted that evidence has already been concluded before the trial Court and the case was at the stage of recording statements of petitioner and other co-accused .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version