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 - 2006 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (10) TMI 453 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Complaint u/s 138/141/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act challenging summoning orders.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Challenge to summoning order
The petitioners challenged the summoning order based on an Agency Agreement between M/s. Bumpi Udyog and M/s. Exports India. The agreement required the petitioner to provide two black cheques, including the cheque in question, as security. The complaint alleged dishonour of the cheque by the petitioner, but the petitioners argued that the complaint was not maintainable because the cheque was given to M/s. Bumpi Udyog, not the complainant M/s. Surbhi Wears Pvt. Ltd. Additionally, at the time of handing over the cheque, there was no debt or liability owed by the petitioner to M/s. Bumpi Udyog, making the complaint under Section 138 invalid.

Issue 2: Court proceedings
The Court issued a notice to the complainant, directing a stay of proceedings before the Trial Court. Despite proper service, the complainant did not appear for several dates. After hearing the petitioner's counsel and examining the Trial Court record, the Court found merit in the petition.

Issue 3: Judgment
The Court observed that the agreement between M/s. Bumpi Udyog and the petitioner specifically mentioned the provision of black cheques as security. As there was no violation of the agreement's terms, the complaint's claim of dues payable by the petitioner to the complainant was unfounded. The complaint alleged that the cheque was issued to discharge a liability, but it was actually a blank cheque given at the agreement's signing. The Court noted that the complainant had not disclosed the petitioner's reply to a legal notice in the complaint, indicating suppression of facts. Citing a similar case, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the summoning order and dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent.

Conclusion
The petition succeeded, and the summoning order was quashed. The complaint was dismissed, and the Trial Court record was to be returned.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates