9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained before the assets of the accused-company are to be diverted or transferred. The aforesaid embargo cannot be considered to be a bar to proceed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against petitioner - this Court is not inclined to quash the complaints or the impugned order in question - Petition disposed off. - CRL.M.C. 1480/2017 & Crl.M.A. 6091/2017, CRL.M.C. 3244/2017 & Crl.M.A. 13338/2017, CRL.M.C. 3246/2017 & Crl.M.A. 13342/2017, CRL.M.C. 3247/2017 & Crl.M.As. 13344/2017 & 8326/2018, CRL.M.C. 3248/2017 & Crl.M.A. 13346/2017, CRL.M.C. 3645/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2019 - MR. SUNIL GAUR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shubendru Bhardwaj, Mr. Aroma S. Bhardwaj, Mr. Inayat Aha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cember, 2015 to his banker, directed stop payment in respect of the cheques in question as these cheques are undated and were given to the complainant with verbal instruction that these cheqeus are to be encashed once the paddy will be cleared by Quality Control Department. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that due to certain issues in quality, the said paddy has not been passed by the Quality Control Department and so, the payment in respect of the cheques was stopped. So, it is submitted that there is no existing debt or liability and thus, no case for proceeding with complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against petitioner is made out. It is pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, 2016 has confirmed in writing that the outstanding amount is of ₹ 10,42,86,978/- and in the face of this admission, it cannot be said that there is no existing debt or liability. Learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner s case is based on disputed facts and so, petitioner ought to be relegated to the trial court for decision on merits. It is also pointed out that in the application under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 petitioner offered no defence. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decision cited, I find that the contents of communication of 9th December, 2015 regarding stop payment are disputed by respondent s counsel and the document confirming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
