TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed person in conduct of business of Apar Steel and Casting Pvt. Ltd. Co. Aforesaid cheques are dated 02.05.2015 and 15.04.2015, whereas the disputed cheque, which is placed on record vide Exhibit 8 is signed by Rameshkumar N. Agraval in his individual capacity is dated 25.03.2016. In case of MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKH VERSUS VIJAY D. SALVI [ 2015 (8) TMI 907 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon ble Supreme Court inter alia held that from a bare reading of Section 138 of the NI Act the essential ingredient to attract the liability is that a person who is made liable should be drawer of the cheque and should have drawn the cheque on account maintained by him with the banker, for the payment of any amount of money to any person from out of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and order, learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal against the respondent No.1 original accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The facts emerging from the complaint are that: 4.1 The applicant is in the business of trading of the iron and metal parts and the opponent No.1 is the Director of Apar Steel and Casting Pvt. Ltd. Co., which is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is contended by the complainant that the parties have entered into the purchase of iron and metal parts from the applicant and in the said transaction, an amount of Rs.10,69,676/- was outstanding. To discharge such liability, the opponent No.1 had initially issued two chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal enforceable debt existing against the opponent No.1. 5. Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned advocate for the applicant original complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi reported in 2015(9) SCC 622 and has submitted that the complaint has rightly been filed against the opponent No.1 Rameshkumar N. Agraval, as Director of Apar Steel and Casting Pvt. Ltd. Co. He further submitted that the cheque was drawn by the opponent in his individual capacity and not in the capacity of the Director of the said Company. However, the opponent No.1 being In-charge as the Director of the Company, the legally enforceable debt had been established, more particularly, cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o indicate that Rameshkumar N. Agraval was the Director of the said Company. He lastly submitted that no link has been established by the original complainant about the existence of legally enforceable debt against Rameshkumar N. Agraval in his individual capacity. He therefore, prayed to not to entertain the present leave to appeal and to confirm the judgment and order of acquittal. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, prima facie, this Court finds that the two cheques, which have come on record at Exhibit 22 and 23 goes to indicate that Rameshkumar N. Agraval has signed these cheques as Authorized Signatory of the Company namely Apar Steel and Casting Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thus, it has come on record that he is the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
