9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 29th June 2016, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC no. 3108/15 the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petition. 2. Facts leading to the present case as per the complaint are that the petitioner is a company carrying on financing business of Corporate lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent though registered post and AD. Despite the service of legal notice, the respondent failed to make the payment. Hence, the complaint. 3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Petitioner company filed its evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 through Mr. Amit Chaudhary and relied upon copy of extracts of Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted that the respondent was its employee. CW-1 in his affidavit admitted that the respondent was working on agency basis called as Field Manager for the petitioner company and his work was to select appropriate and eligible borrowers for disbursal of loan and was responsible to recover the installments of loan. The petitioner company did not file the appointment letter of the respondent where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gedly executed on 8th January 2013 whereas the stamp paper on which the loan agreement was executed was purchased on 6th March, 2010. The petitioner company failed to explain why the stamp papers for the loan agreement were purchased almost three years prior to the execution of loan documents. Moreover, the loan agreement is a void contract for want of consideration. It is evident that the consent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
