2019 (12) TMI 1132 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of leave to appeal - Service of notice - Dishonor of cheque - rebuttal of presumption - Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act - HELD THAT - There has been lapse on the part of the petitioner in not issuing any notice to the signatories of the cheques that had been dishonoured or to the persons who are in charge of the affairs of respondent no.1 company, namely, its directors. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment - The petition seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing condoned in CRL.M.A. 42571/2019
2. Appeal against judgment in Complaint Case No.41370/2016 under Section 138 of the NI Act
3. Liability of respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the NI Act

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the condonation of delay in filing in CRL.M.A. 42571/2019, where the delay was condoned for reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.
2. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment in Complaint Case No.41370/2016 under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner had entered into an agreement for a real estate project, paid a sum, and received cheques that were dishonoured. The Trial Court convicted the company but acquitted respondent no.2, a director, as evidence showed he was not a director of the company. The petitioner argued respondent no.2 should be liable under Section 141 of the NI Act.
3. The judgment extensively analyzed Section 141 of the NI Act, which imposes vicarious liability on individuals responsible for a company's conduct. It was noted that the evidence did not establish that respondent no.2 was in charge of the company's affairs. The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's decision to acquit respondent no.2 as there was insufficient evidence to prove his liability. The petitioner's failure to issue notices to relevant parties was also highlighted, indicating a lapse in legal procedure. The petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, but the petitioner was not precluded from pursuing other legal actions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the legal reasoning applied by the Court in reaching its decision.