2016 (9) TMI 1157 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheques - proceedings in complaint case under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - liability after resignation - Held that - The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that Forms-32 as placed on record were filed on 23rd April, 2004 and 7th April, 2004 showing an ante-dated resignation of the Directors w.e.f. 20th March, 2000 and 6th September, 2002 of Nimish Maheshwari and Brij Maheshwari respectively, thus it was not sufficient to absolve the liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The certificates filed do not prove conclusively that the petitioners actually resigned on 30th March, 2000 and 6th September, 2002 and this issue can be decided during trial only. Thus find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the registration for resignation of the petitioners w.e.f. 30th March, 2000 and 6th September, 2002 is post the cause of action which arose after the legal notice dated 28th January, 2004 was issued. Thus only after the parties lead the evidence, it can be determined whether the petitioners actually resigned on 30th March, 2000 and 6th September, 2002 or not. No ground to interfere in the order summoning the petitioners

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of proceedings in complaint case under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds. The petitioners' contention of resignation as Directors before the issuance of the cheque and the subsequent legal implications.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought the quashing of proceedings under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, related to the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds. The petitioners, former Directors of a company, entered into a loan agreement with the respondent company, agreeing to repay a loan in installments. The complaint was filed for the dishonor of a specific cheque. The petitioners claimed to have resigned as Directors before the issuance of the cheque, asserting they should not be summoned as accused.

The Court noted discrepancies in the submission of Form-32 related to the resignation dates of the petitioners. Despite certified copies being filed later, the Court found them insufficient to conclusively prove the resignation dates as claimed by the petitioners. The respondent argued that the registration of resignation post-dated the cause of action, indicating the issue should be determined during trial proceedings.

The Court agreed with the respondent's contention, emphasizing that the registration of resignation post the cause of action required evidence to establish the actual resignation dates. As the facts did not warrant interference in the order summoning the petitioners, the Court dismissed the petitions and applications, indicating the need for further evidence during trial to ascertain the resignation dates conclusively.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the order summoning the petitioners, highlighting the need for evidence to determine the actual resignation dates in light of the legal notice and subsequent proceedings. The dismissal of the petitions and applications indicated the requirement for a trial to resolve the issue regarding the petitioners' resignation dates and their liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.