Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
M/S GLAZEBROOKE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S ORBIS TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on limitation and demand notice (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. commencement of limitation analysis (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. service of demand notice to company valid for directors (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. calculating periods of limitation (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. failure to seek condonation of delay (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. final decision and quashing of complaint (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present petition has been instituted seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint bearing Nos.4152/2022 pending before the learned JMFC, NI Act, Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
2. The subject proceedings arise out of the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant wherein M/s Glazebrooke Trading Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 has been arrayed as accused/petitioner No. 1, while its Directors are arrayed as accused/petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No.1 had approached one Pettigo Comercio Intemacional Lda (“Debenture Holders”) seeking financing in the form of unlisted, collateralised, redeemable and non-convertible debentures each bearing fa
The court confirms that service of demand notice to a company suffices for its directors regarding dishonoured cheques, establishing limitations under the Negotiable Instruments Act strictly apply.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of issuing legal demand notices within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonor of the cheques, as....
The court confirmed that a dishonoured cheque can lead to criminal liability under Section 138, provided all statutory requirements, including timely filing of the complaint, are met.
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.
The court upheld the summoning order under Section 138 of the NI Act, confirming that the complaint was filed within the limitation period and a prima facie case was established against the petitione....
A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must be filed within the statutory limitation, and failure to comply with Section 142(b) regarding delay results in dismissal.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable if filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period, which affects the cause of action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the provision for condoning the delay in filing the complaint under Section 142.
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
