Back
SANDEEP N. BHATT
V S Synthetics – Appellant
Versus
Reliance Capital Ltd. Thro. Hitesh Joshi, Authorise Officer – Respondent
Key Points: - The Act of 2007 imposes liability on both the company and persons in charge of the company for contraventions; directors or officers may be deemed liable where consent, connivance, or neglect is established (!) (!) [13000380030008]. - The court held that the provisions of the Act of 2007 are special and cannot be equated with the NI Act; complainant's averments can be sufficient to proceed to trial, and applicants should face trial (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly; if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and contains specific averments, the matter should proceed to trial rather than be quashed (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - Parallel principles from NI Act (Sections 138/141) are discussed, with caution against treating the 2007 Act as identical; however, vicarious liability principles may apply where the complaint alleges director-level involvement (!) - (!) (!) - (!) . - The specific factual findings indicate that the complaint contains allegations that the ECS mandate was issued with company involvement and that the applicant was a director/co-borrower; trial is warranted to determine liability [13000380030004]-[13000380030012]. - Final decision in the judgment: applications under Section 482 are dismissed; the rule and notices are discharged; respondents may proceed to trial; interim reliefs are vacated [13000380030016].
JUDGMENT :
1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Case Nos.6018 of 2016, 888 of 2017, 5009397 of 2016, respectively qua the applicants, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.29, Ahmedabad filed under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (‘the Act of 2007’ for short).
2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in these applications, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral judgment.
3. The facts as stated in the applications are such that it is alleged by respondent no.1 in the complaint that one M/s V.S.Texmills Pvt.Ltd. Had availed finance/loan from it and had opted for Electronic Clearing Service (ECS) for repayment of finance/lona. As the ECS initiated by M/s V.S.Texmills Pvt.Ltd., got dishonoured, the complaint is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Gupta for the applicants and learned APP Mr.Joshi for respondent no.2- state. Learned advocate for the respondent no.1- complainant was not present.
4.1. Learned advocate f
The main legal point established in the judgment is the special nature of the provisions of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, and the principles of vicarious liability, as well as the lim....
The court emphasized that N.I.Act proceedings cannot be used as a means to recover outstanding amounts when no other recovery proceedings have been initiated, and that the offer made by the petitione....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments and unimpeachable evidence to establish vicarious liability of directors in cases of cheque bounce under Sec....
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
