Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1985
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Anil Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Sadhu Ram - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 22417 of 2019
Decided On : 21-11-2019
Aashish Chopra, Adv., Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Adv., Niharika Sharma, Adv., Pawandeep Singh, Adv., Rashleen Virk, Adv., Sandeep Lather, Adv., Munish Kumar Garg, Adv., Gourav Jain, Adv.
Headnote:
N.I. Act - Quashing of complaints - Section 138 of N.I. Act - 1881 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the liability of directors, resignation from directorship, and the responsibility for the conduct of business of the accused-company. The court emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint regarding the director's role and responsibility and the acceptance of resignation by the Registrar of Companies. The court also highlighted the importance of Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies as proof of resignation of the director.
Fact of the Case:
The complaints were filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner, a director of M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., for issuing dishonored cheques. The petitioner moved applications for dropping the proceedings, claiming resignation from directorship. The trial Court dismissed the application, and the petitioner filed petitions for quashing the complaints and related proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitions, emphasizing the disputed facts regarding the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation and his role as an active director responsible for the company's business affairs. The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to provide evidence to rebut the complainant's averments and the discrepancies in the resignation documents.
Issues: Disputed acceptance of resignation, director's role and responsibility, liability for dishonored cheques, and discrepancies in resignation documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint regarding the director's role and responsibility, acceptance of resignation by the Registrar of Companies, and the importance of Form No.32 as proof of resignation. The court also highlighted the petitioner's failure to provide evidence to rebut the complainant's averments and the discrepancies in the resignation documents.
Final Decision: The petitions for quashing the complaints and related proceedings were dismissed due to disputed questions of facts and the petitioner's failure to provide evidence to rebut the complainant's averments and the discrepancies in the resignation documents.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Vide this common order, 103 petitions praying for quashing of the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') filed by different complainants, with the allegations that the petitioner, being Director of M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., had issued the cheques and is responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1-company, are being disposed of.
2. The brief description of all the cases along with cheque numbers, amount and date of issuance of cheque(s) is reproduced as under: -
3. Since the facts in all the complaints as well as grounds taken by the petitioner in all the petitions are identical, the same are taken from CRM-M-22417-2019.
4. The complainant filed the impugned complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act with the following averments: -
"That accused No.2 to 7 are active directors of accused No.1. The accused No.2 to 7 are actively involved in the business of accused No.1. The accused No.2 to 7 are jointly and severally carry out business operations of accused No.1 which includes purchase of raw material i.e. paddy from different grain markets, transport of paddy to their premises, milling of paddy, converting it into rice, selling rice and its by products which includes rice litter, rice bran etc. in India as well as overseas. The accused No.2 to 7 frequently travel abroad for export of their rice. The accused No.2 to 7 attend to their offices and plants for carrying out business of accused No.1. Thus, the accused No.2 to 7 are responsible for day to day conduct and affairs of the business of accused No.1.
That accused used to purchase paddy from complainant on credit from time to time. The accused used to make on account payment in round figure to the complainant. The complainant has charged interest @18% per annum on the unpaid amount as per market custom and oral agreement between the parties.
That on 01.04.2014, a sum of Rs.3,44,213/- was due against the accused. During financial year, 2014-2015, the accused paid a sum of Rs.3,44,213/- to the complainant from 29.08.2014 to 20.12.2014. During this financial year, the accused purchased paddy worth Rs.3,17,715 on 14.02.2015 from complainant. A sum of Rs.4944/- was debited on account of interest on unpaid price and a sum of Rs.4,994/- was credited on account of tax deducted at source. In this way, a sum of Rs.3,62,212/- remained due towards accused on 31.03.2015. The interest after 31.03.2015 is also due against the accused. The statements of account of accused in the books of complainant for the year 2014, 2015, 2015-2016 & 2016- 2017 are attached herewith."
5. It is further stated in the complaint that in discharge of his liability, the petitioner issued the cheques, as detailed above, which were, later on, dishonoured and after serving the legal notice, the impugned complaints were filed.
6. The trial Court, after recording the preliminary evidence, passed the summoning order, which reads as under:-
| "Arguments on the summoning point of accused heard. Complainant has filed the instant complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the accused in discharge of his existing liability had issued a cheque bearing No. 260192 dated 15.12.2016 amounting to Rs. 3,17,715/- cheqeue bearing No. 360650 dated 08.04.2017 amounting to Rs. 6345.90 in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured by the bank with the remarks "Funds Insufficient and exceeds Arrangement." Thereafter a legal notice was issued and the same was sent, but the accused had failed to make the payment of the cheque in question. Hence, this complaint. |
|
|
| In preliminary evidence, the complainant has himself appeared as CW-1 and has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with Ex.C1 to |
