9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; Respondent Represented by: Dr. Alok, Adv. MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Complaint case No.4309/2015 was filed by the respondent M/s. T.C. Communications Pvt. Ltd. (in short T.C.) against Abhijeet Projects Ltd. (in short the accused company) and 9 other persons who were its senior DGM, Senior DM, Managing Directors, authorized signatories etc. under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negoti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Centre, Tis Hazari Courts wherein M/s. T.C. agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs. 74,32,549/-. M/s. T.C. withdrew the complaint. To honour settlement dated 3rd October, 2013 accused company handed-over 7 post-dated cheques for different dates. Out of the 7 cheques, when cheque bearing No.404288 dated 31st March, 2014 for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was presented, the same was dish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners seeking quashing of the complaint and order summoning them are that the petitioners were non-executive independent director of the accused company with petitioner Arun Kumar Shrivastava being appointed on 5th July, 2010 but resigned on 7th August, 2013 whereas petitioner Milind Vasant Bodhankar appointed on 20th July, 2012 and resigned with effect from 15th March, 2013. It is thus claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 138 of the NI Act. The factum that the two petitioners ceased to be the Directors of the company with effect from 7th August, 2013 and 15th March, 2013 respectively has not been denied. Thus, at the time when the cheque in question was dishonoured, the petitioners were not the Directors of the company and were not even liable when the cause of action arose i.e. non-payment within 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
