TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors 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 days of the receipt of the legal notice. Moreover, the petitioners have placed on record impeccable evidence in the form of copy of Form-32 filed before the Registrar of Companies showing their resignation from the dates as noted above. The petitioners have not been summoned for offences under Section 420/120B IPC or dishonour of the earlier cheque. Hence for dishonour of the cheque in question vicarious liability cannot be fastened on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of proceedings a settlement was arrived at between M/s. T.C. and accused company on 3rd October, 2013 before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts wherein M/s. T.C. agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of ₹ 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 ₹ 10 lakhs was presented, the same was dishonoured with the return memo Funds Insufficient on 21st April, 2014. A legal notice dated 6th May, 2014 was issued to the accused persons at the addresses which was duly served on accused. Neither any reply was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the respondent appearing in the Court stated that the respondent does not wish to file any reply and relies upon the reply filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been summoned only for offences punishable 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 days of the receipt of the legal notice. Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
