TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the power of attorney agent was given to the present power agent (P.W.1) under Exhibit P1 also covers the respondent case or not cannot be inferred and hence, the trial Court has rightly commented upon the said insertion and corrections held that the power deed is not maintainable, in view of the defects in the power deed. The nonproduction of the alleged document with regard to the alleged transaction, the trial Court is quite right in drawing adverse interference against the appellant and the same cannot be found fault with and thus on entirety of the circumstances, the suggestive case of the defendants as reflected under Ex.R1 issued as early as on 10.02.2013, immediately after the legal notice under Ex.P5, dated 4.2.2003 and non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, HDFC Bank Limited, Trichy Road Branch, Coimbatore and on deposit, the same was returned as stop payment instructed by the respondent herein and after issuing the notice, he filed the private complaint. 4. The suggestive case of the respondent/accused is that the petition filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable. As such, the power of attorney appointed by the Managing Director of the complainant's company is not maintainable-in-law and there is no business transaction between the appellant and the respondent as alleged and also stated that the respondent are herein engaged in collection agent and the representative of the complainant company came to the Gujarat and gave a cheque for ₹ 1,00,100/- for collection for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stive case as stated above. 6. Furthermore, even immediately, after the issuance of Ex.P4 legal notice, the respondent has issued a reply notice under Ex.B1 as early as on 10.02.2003 wherein similar fact as projected as a defense case has been duly reflected in the reply notice. However, neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of the P.W.1, the alleged reply of the respondent/accused has been reflected and trial Court has drawn the adverse interference on the attitude of the petitioner. Furthermore, taking note of the fact that on the date of the issuance of stop payment more than one crore is found to be in the account of the accused Company as per the Exhibit R4 and Exhibit R5 and hence, held that the case of the private complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence on both the grounds, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.P1 Power Deed is defective nature and prosecution launched against the respondent/accused is not maintainable. 8. The respondent/accused has clearly demonstrated his suggestive case that they are engaged only as a collection agent and the representative of the appellant herein gave a cheque for ₹ 1,00,100/- for the collection of ₹ 1,00,000/- for which, the accused has given a cheque for ₹ 1,00,000/- payable at Coimbatore. Subsequently, the representative came and collected back his cheque and them it appears that the accused has demanded for his cheque. As instructed by complainant representative he has given instruction for stop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and the same cannot be found fault with and thus on entirety of the circumstances, the suggestive case of the defendants as reflected under Ex.R1 issued as early as on 10.02.2013, immediately after the legal notice under Ex.P5, dated 4.2.2003 and non-production of documents relating to the alleged business transaction, non-production of documents receipts and invoices regarding alleged transaction coupled with a fact that Ex.P1 Power Deed is found to be defective, consequently make the appellant case more improbable and unbelievable. 11. For the reasons stated supra and also on the date of the issuance of stop payment by the respondent/accused is having a amount to the tune of more than one crore, the trial Court quite right ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|