TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen only in trial Court. Further, in the very resignation letter, he has stated that he is the Executive Chairman of the first accused/Company at the earlier point of time. Therefore, the facts which are disputed by the other side cannot be dealt with by this Court, as it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the trial Court. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is one of the Executive Directors in the affairs of the Company. The respondent-Bank pleaded that the cash credit facility has been extended from time to time to the accused persons, who are in-charge of the Company. Merely on the ground that in the pleadings with regard to role played by each of the Directors, is not stated as strictly as required unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant issued a statutory notice to all the accused persons, intimating them about the dishonour of the cheque. Since the accused did not make the payment, the complainant/Bank has initiated the prosecution in C.C.No.1672 of 2016 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein/A3 resigned from the first accused/Company, even prior to the issuance of the cheque and opening of the Letter of Credit. He further submitted that the petitioner herein was the non-executive Director of the first accused/Company. Further, Form DIR-12 filed along with the typed set of papers, proves t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrar of Companies only on 08.04.2016. The cheque got dishonoured on 07.07.2015. Hence, submitted that there are sufficient averments against the petitioner and he is liable for the prosecution of the offence. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the documents themselves are disputed and merely because the submissions are made before this Court, the same cannot be relied upon, without proving the authentication as required under law. The documents that have to be proved before the Court for reliance. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner has resigned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
