9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e these cheques being given in good faith, deposited these cheques which were dishonoured - The learned Company Judge has observed that neither any complaint nor a Suit is filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, for the dishonour of these cheques. Thus showing the falsity of the Appellants claim. There is no perversity in the findings on facts by the learned Company Judge to conclude that no liability of the Appellants could be said to have been admitted so as to warrant admission of these Company Petitions - petition dismissed. - APPEAL (L) NO. 416 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 601 OF 2014, APPEAL (L) NO. 417 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 602 OF 2014, APPEAL (L) NO. 418 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 600 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants proceed on the basis of the claim due at the end of the ledger account and not on the basis of the failure to pay the amounts of the cheques which were dishonoured. The Appellants have neither filed any complaint nor any Suit under Negotiable Instrument for the dishonour of the cheques issued by the Respondent Companies. The learned Company Judge on the material on record gave a finding that the Appellants / Petitioners case of inability on the part of the Respondent companies to pay its debts is not believable. The learned Company Judge has given a considered finding based on the material on record that there were several discrepancies in the facts presented by the Appellants in the Company Petitions filed by them. The learned Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Company Judge has failed to consider that although no action was taken by the Appellants under the Negotiable Instrument Act, there were debts due by the Respondent Companies to the Appellants as reflected in the ledger account. He has further submitted that the mere non-filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot mean that the proceedings under Section 434 under the Companies Act, 1956 are not maintainable. He has submitted that the Respondent Companies had failed to provide documentary evidence to show that the entire sum due and payable to the Appellants have been paid. He has according submitted that the Company Petitions should not have been dismissed by the learned Company Judge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
