TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate. Respondents Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State. Mr. Satender Kumar Garg, Advocate for Respondent No.2. MS. MUKTA GUPTA J. 1. During the course of trial the petitioner as complainant impleaded four accused being respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offender and thus the trial proceeded only against respondent No.2, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No.2 contested the complaint through its authorized representative. 2. Case of the appellant in the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments (in short NI Act ) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer To Drawer . Statutory demand notice was sent which was received by the respondent No. 2 and its Director who sent the reply and raised false and frivolous pleas. The legal notice and the reply thereto were exhibited as Ex. CW-1/13 and CW-1/15 respectively. 3. The plea taken by the respondent Nos. 2 in the reply dated 12th February, 1999 was that though a buy back agreement was entered into however, a blank signed cheque was procured by the appellant in connivance with one of its staff members and there was no legally enforceable liability against the respondent no. 1 and in favour of the appellant. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that there is no provision for interest in the buyback agreement Ex. CW-1/3 much less of 3% compoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany was required to sell the shares in the open market if the value of shares fetch ₹15/- per share however, the appellant company failed to sell the shares despite the price of shares in question exceeding the value of ₹15/- per share in open market in terms of said buyback agreement. In this regard respondent No. 2 examined authorized representative of the Delhi Stock Exchange as DW-2 who deposed about the rate of share in question to be ₹15/- in the open market at the relevant period. Learned Trial Court further noted that even if interest @3% per annum is calculated on the amount of ₹11,37,500/- as demanded vide letter dated 15th October, 1997, the amount calculated as on 21st December, 1998 was ₹16,17,451 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the price of the same goes beyond ₹15/- each before 15th October, 1997. The appellant was provided with 45,000 shares of the respondent No. 2 along with the duly signed transfer deeds as security against their buyback commitment and in case of failure the appellant was authorized to dispose of the said shares in the market. 8. The entire complaint is silent on the 45,000 shares provided by the respondent No. 2 as per the buyback agreement. The respondent No. 2 has also led the evidence about the market price of the shares purchased being above ₹15/per share by examining DW-2. 9. Considering the evidence on record as discussed by the learned Trial Court it cannot be held that the finding of the learned Trial Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
