9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Court is of the considered opinion that necessary ingredients to maintain the complaints in question are lacking, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable and so, continuance of proceedings arising out of the complaints in question would be an exercise in futility. Petition disposed off. - CRL.M.C. 4984/2018 and CRL.M.A. 33208/2018 & CRL.M.As. 5733-5734/2019, CRL.M.C. 4981/2018 and CRL.M.A. 33202/2018, CRL.M.C. 4980/2018 and CRL.M.A. 33200/2018, CRL.M.C. 4983/2018 and CRL.M.A. 33206/2018, CRL.M.C. 4982/2018 and CRL.M.A. 33204/2018, - - - Dated:- 17-7-2019 - MR. SUNIL GAUR J. Petitioners Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Kr. Dhatwalia, Ms. Iti Sharma and Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Advocates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... your aforesaid cheques were duly deposited by my client with his banker IDBI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi but to the utter dismay of my client the said cheques have been dishonoured for the reason Exceeds Arrangement and Signature differs . 4. That my client was intimated about the dishonor of the said cheques on 16.11.13. Vide Reply of 26th December, 2013 petitioner had responded to aforesaid Demand Notice while stating as under:- Cheque nos. 014226 014229 were never handed over to your client. Those are amongst few of our lost cheques under due intimation to the local Police. Please note that under the guard of our previous relationship, your client could manage getting through these cheques stealthily from our office premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Thus, the cheques were not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and therefore, the same doesn t attract the provisions of Section 138 of NI Act and the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant is not maintainable. C. That in the reply to the legal notice dated 6/12/2013, Shivom categorically denied its liability and specified that the cheques were issued towards security under two MOUs. But Ld. Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind on the replies dated 24/26/12/2013. D. During investigation in two complaints filed by Shivom i.e. 928929/2014, respondent-complainant had admitted that the subject cheques were issued towards security under the MOUs and instead of returning those cheques aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the MoUs did not mention the iron ore alone and it related to steel items also and the cheques in question were issued against the liability in respect of the steel items. It is pointed out that when the cheques in question were presented, the existing liability was of ₹12 Crores. So, it was submitted that cheques in question were towards an existing liability and were not security cheques. Thus, it was submitted that no case for quashing of the complaints or the summoning orders is made out. After evaluating the submissions advanced, impugned complaints, pre-summoning evidence, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHEQUE NO. DATED AMOUNT DRAWN ON 018110 18-10-13 ₹ 10000000/- IDBI BANK, BHUBNESHWAR, ORISSA-751022 018111 18-10-13 ₹ 10000000/- -------DO------- 014296 17-10-13 ₹ 1,40,00000/- -------DO------- ------------- --------------- ----------- -------------- In the absence of necessary averments in the complaints in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
