9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for him to participate in or being responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company accused, particularly around the period to which the issuance of cheques, their dishonor and failure to pay pursuant to the demand notices relates. The petitioner, at best, raises question of facts which cannot be effectively addressed or determined in the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His contentions raise defences which will have to be considered on the basis of evidence led before the trial court. Phese petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 20,000/- each. - CRL.M.C. 3791/2016 and Crl.M.A.15849/2016, CRL.M.C. 4405/2016 and Crl.M.A.18399/2016, CRL.M.C. 4415/2016 and Crl.M.A.18431/2016, CRL.M.C. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs, they, as per the complainant s case, having been issued and handed over for payment of consideration due on account of sale of rice grains. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, on the basis of preliminary inquiry, found sufficient grounds to proceed, inter alia, against the petitioner and thereby having issued process through orders which are impugned herein. 3. The prime contention raised by the petitioner has been that he is a non-resident Indian (NRI) who has been a director of the company accused but has not been participating in its affairs, other individual accused (particularly, Ms. Anita Dhang) being the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the said company. It is his contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant placed before the court copies of the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the company accused, held on various dates (beginning 31.07.2009), also covering the relevant period when the subject transactions were undertaken, as also the relevant reports submitted to the registrar of companies (ROC) from time to time, the same indicating that the petitioner has been involved in the affairs of the company as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, he indeed being the person holding the largest stake in the company accused, his participation in the meeting of the board of directors being consistent and constant throughout. 6. On being asked, the counsel for the petitioner was unable to refute the above said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
