9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return the said money soon. All the five persons have been equally involved in the dealing of giving and receiving the cheque. Evidently, therefore, the second cheque was issued in terms of the compromise. It did not create a new liability. As the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt. the second cheque was issued by Manish Arora for the purpose of arriving at a settlement. The said cheque was not issued in discharge of the debt or liability of the Company of which the appellants were said to be the directors. There was only one transaction between Shri Ashish Narula, Shri Manish Arora, Directors of the Company and the complainant. They have already been punished. Thus, the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e post of directorship on 30.11.2000. 6. During pendency of the said complaint petition, an endeavour was made to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties. An agreement was entered into by and between the parties in terms whereof it was agreed that if a cheque for a sum of ₹ 5,02,050/- is issued, the complaint petition would be withdrawn. Manish Arora issued a cheque for the said sum on 29.07.2000 which was also on presentation returned on 29.01.2001 with the remark insufficient fund . It is stated that an agreement was also entered into by and between Shri Ashish Narula and the Company that the liability in question was his personal one. He allegedly affirmed an affidavit and executed an indemnity bond on 26.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- ( a )the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; ( b )the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the complaint petition itself, the requisite averments made therefor were as under: 5. That after getting their bail from the court the accused No. 2 to 6 approached and requested the complainant to take fresh cheques for full amount and withdraw the complaint and also felt sorry for the said dishonour of the cheque. 14. The learned Judicial Magistrate also in his order dated 1.10.2002 noticed: It has been stated on behalf of the accused persons that by settlement it was found that the party involved in the dealing would be responsible. Thus, prayer has been made on behalf of the accused persons that the aforementioned all the three accused persons may be discharged from this case. The aforesaid contentions have been op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
