TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 2007. It includes details of the petitioner s documents. His shareholding has also been disclosed i.e. that the petitioner is holding 300 shares. It would be for him to prove during trial that such a shareholding did not allow him to conduct the business of the Company or that despite being a Full Time Director, he had no say in the conduct of the Company s business. It is addressed to the Board of Directors. It only bears an endorsement of receipt by some undisclosed person. There is nothing to show that the resignation has been accepted. No Board Resolution has been annexed nor has a certified copy of Form 32 filed with the Registrar of the Companies been placed on the record. Thus, prima-facie without proof that such a letter h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company that had availed the loan facility against the pledge of shares in terms of the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement dated 25th June, 2007, to the extent of ₹ 1,89,23,046/-, as on 20th July, 2008. Two cheques had been issued by the accused/company bearing Nos.879266 879267 both dated 21st July, 2008 drawn on Bank of India, Mumbai, Main Branch, Mumbai for ₹ 50,00,000/- and ₹ 32,04,401/- respectively in favour of the respondent No.1 towards partial discharge of its liability. The cheques on presentation with the HDFC Bank Ltd., Forte Branch, Mumbai, were returned unpaid due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused/company. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Yash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was Mr. Mahesh Jain, who is arrayed as accused No.5 in the complaint. The petitioner had resigned from the company on 31st March, 2007, well before the cheques had been issued as also much before the loan was sanctioned. Reliance has been placed on the resignation letter placed on the record as Annexure-I. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint case be quashed with regard to the petitioner. 8. A short reply has been filed by the respondent in both the matters. The stand taken by the respondent and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, is that the loan document had been signed by the petitioner whose PAN Card details, were also duly furnished. It is further submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner, that he was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad he resigned before the execution of the said document, why would his name be included? If the petitioner has an explanation, he can offer it but only at his turn, during trial. The document, it may be noted once again, is signed on 25th June, 2007. It includes details of the petitioner s documents. His shareholding has also been disclosed i.e. that the petitioner is holding 300 shares. It would be for him to prove during trial that such a shareholding did not allow him to conduct the business of the Company or that despite being a Full Time Director, he had no say in the conduct of the Company s business. 12. Secondly, the claim of the resignation is founded on a letter placed on the record as Annexure-I, which reads as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
