Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (4) TMI 285 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Issuance and dishonor of cheque under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Responsibility and liability of the petitioner as Director or Authorized Signatory of the accused company.
3. Validity of the summoning order and dismissal of discharge application by the trial court.
4. Allegations of forgery and theft of the cheque.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Issuance and dishonor of cheque under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The complainant, a company engaged in trading metals, alleged that the accused-company owed them ?80,00,000/- for steel scrap supplied, evidenced by invoices. The accused-company issued a cheque for this amount, which was dishonored with the remark "Account Blocked." A legal Demand Notice was sent, and upon non-payment, a complaint was filed under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Responsibility and liability of the petitioner as Director or Authorized Signatory of the accused company:
The petitioner claimed he was merely an employee and not a Director or Authorized Signatory of the accused company. He joined the company on 01.07.2015, after the transactions in question. The complainant, however, provided a document from the MCA website listing the petitioner as an Authorized Representative. The trial court found prima facie evidence to summon the petitioner, noting the cheque was issued during his tenure.

3. Validity of the summoning order and dismissal of discharge application by the trial court:
The trial court's summoning order dated 31.08.2017 and the dismissal of the discharge application on 21.12.2019 were challenged. The petitioner argued that the trial court did not consider his non-involvement and the absence of evidence proving his role in the dishonor of the cheque. The trial court maintained that such issues should be addressed during the trial, referencing legal precedents that support the continuation of proceedings when factual disputes exist.

4. Allegations of forgery and theft of the cheque:
The petitioner alleged that the cheque was forged and stolen, supported by a police complaint filed in May 2017. The complainant disputed this, asserting the cheque was issued by the petitioner to discharge the company's liability. The court noted the timing of the forgery complaint, which came after the cheque's dishonor and the legal notice, suggesting it might be an afterthought to evade liability.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the factual disputes regarding the petitioner's role and the authenticity of the cheque should be resolved through trial. The petition to quash the summoning order and the dismissal of the discharge application was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the case under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that these issues require thorough examination of evidence, which is appropriate for a trial setting.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates