Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
M/S Vedavaag Systems Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Ricoh India Ltd. - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 4718 of 2019 & Crl.M.A.36154 of 2019, Crl.M.A.38201 of 2019, Crl.M.A.36155 of 2019 & Crl.M.A.36156 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2020
NI Act - Jurisdiction of High Court - Summary of Acts and Sections: NI Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139, 142-147, 118, 27; Cr.P.C - Section 482 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Factoring Regulation Act, 2011 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Cr.P.C - Sections 251, 263(g), 145(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Summary of Acts and Sections: General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner placed an order for IT equipments with the respondent, issued undated cheques as security, failed to make payments, and was summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court cannot evaluate the truthfulness of allegations or delve into disputed facts at the Section 482 stage. The accused must disclose their defence and prove it during trial. The trial court should consider and deal with the contentions and defence of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
Issues: Whether the cheques were security cheques, the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act due to the assignment of debt.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused must disclose their defence and prove it during trial. The High Court cannot evaluate the truthfulness of allegations or delve into disputed facts at the Section 482 stage.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed, and the Trial Court shall consider and deal with the contentions and defence of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
CRL.M.A.36155/2019 & CRL.M.A.36156/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4718/2019 & CRL.M.A.36154/2019, CRL.M.A.38201/2019
1. The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :
b. Quash order and notice dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Ld. MM- 05, Patiala Hosue Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 10159 of 2017 vide which the Ld. MM was pleased to frame notice against the petitioner No. 2 under Section 251 of the Code, 1973 and proceedings there under;
c. Quash Complaint Case No. 10159 of 2017 and proceedings there under."
2. On 10.12.2014, petitioner No. 1 had placed an order for procurement of IT equipments worth Rs. 46,41,40,968/- with the respondent company. According to the petitioner No. 1 two undated cheques worth Rs. 23,20,70,484/- each were issued by the petitioner company as security alongwith purchase order. According to the petitioner No. 1 it was decided that the payment was to be made in 24 monthly installments as per purchase order and in case of nonpayment of two consecutive installments the security cheques were liable for deposits. On 12.12.2014, petitioner No. 1 wrote a letter to the respondent that the respondent has to take back the material in case petitioner No. 1 is unable to sell the material in the market during these two years of payment schedule in lieu of payment. According to petitioner No. 1 on 31.05.2015, a notice of assignment of debt was sent by respondent to petitioner No. 1 intimating that debt of Rs. 45,12,48,163/- has been assigned to Citibank.
3. On the other hand, according to the respondent, petitioner No. 1 herein gave two cheques amounting to Rs. 23,20,70,484/- each to the respondent in discharge of its liabilities in respect of purchase order dated 10.12.2014. As per schedule 1 of the said purchase order if the petitioner No. 1 failed to make payment of two consecutive installments, the respondent could deposit the said cheques to recover the debt.
4. On 31.01.2015, petitioner No. 1 discharged installment by paying Rs. 1,28,92,805/- but thereafter no payment was made by petitioner No. 1 to the respondent despite having received all the goods under the purchase order. On 25.03.2015, receivable purchases agreement was entered between the respondent and Citibank whereby respondent assigned the receivables due from the petitioner under the purchase order to Citibank. As per clause 7.1 of RPA, if Citibank did not receive the receivables in full from petitioner No. 1, the respondent was obligated to repurchase such receivables at the Citibank's option and demand.
5 Since the petitioner No. 1 failed to make the payment due and receivable to Citibank, so respondent was compelled to purchase the said receivables from the Citibank. Accordingly, the debt due from petitioner No. 1 was remitted back to respondent. On 16.07.2015, respondent made payment of Rs. 40,61,23,346/- to Citibank as petitioner did not make the payment to Citibank. Repeated requests were made by the respondent to petitioner No. 1 to clear its dues under the purchase order but to no avail. So on 05.04.2016, respondent was constrained to present the two cheques for encashment as petitioner No. 1 failed to pay two consecutive installments but the cheques were returned unpaid on 06.04.2016 as payment was stopped by the drawer. It is then on 28.05.2016, respondent filed complaint U/s 138 NI Act and the petitioners were summoned by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 01.06.2016 and notice was framed on 22.07.2019.
6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
7. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioners that the cheques issued were in the nature of security cheques and n
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
