9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post dated cheque issued to the Complainant in lieu of the Loan amount will be honoured in the due course. The contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was neither a Director nor held a responsible position in the accused company for conducting day to day affairs of the accused company loses its significance as the petitioner was in fact President of the Accused Company and had written the aforesaid letter to the Complainant just 4 days after the alleged meeting happened. The Court below after going through evidence supported by direct evidence of CW1 took cognizance of offence under Section 420/34 IPC. This Court find no ground to interfere with Summoning Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it loan of ₹ 25,00,000/- and accused persons expressly agreed to pay interest at the rate of 31% per annum and promised to pay the said loan after 90 days from the date of payment. For availing the said facility, the accused executed various documents recording the said loan transaction and also executed a promissory note of the said amount with interest in favour of the complainant. The Accused No.2 stood guarantor for repayment of the said amount. Thereafter, the inter corporate deposit agreement cum pledge deed was executed between Complainant and Accused No.1 Company on June 8, 1996 at New Delhi and the sum was repayable by the accused persons to the complainant at New Delhi. Moreover, accused persons informed the complainant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the cheque was dishonored and not on the date of issuance of the legal notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act. However, the present petitioner was unnecessarily dragged and was made an accused in the present complaint. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the complaint has been made as if there is vicarious liability for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. He further submitted that the complainant has not furnished any document as to show the involvement of the present petitioner in grant of loan. He further submitted that the Summoning Order is vague and without any material and thus is bad in Law and without application of mind. Learned Senior Counsel relied on Supreme Court Judgment in Harshendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of IPC is as under: (i) There must be Deception. (ii) Accused must induce a person by said deception. (iii) That the accused did so Dishonestly. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner was the President of M/s GSL (India) Ltd. and his letter dated 12.06.1996 to the complainant is reproduced as under: GSL (INDIA) LIMITED REGD. OFFICE WORKS: GSL House, Plot No. 56 Village: AMLETHA Road No. 17 MIDC Taluka: NANDOD Andheri(E), Bombay-400093 Dist.: BHARUCH Tel.: 8215936/37/39/40 Phone: Rajpipla (02640)20232 Fax: (022) 8215944 Tix.: 011-79434 GSL IN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieu of the Loan amount will be honoured in the due course. 14. The complainant in support of its complaint examined CW1 Navneet Prabhakar (AR of the Complainant Company) on 30.11.2002 who specifically stated in his statement that Accused Company through Accused Persons i.e. Accused No.2 Sh. R.C. Bagrodia, Managing Director, M/s GSL (India) Ltd., Accused No.3 Sh. B.K. Ametha, Joint Managing Director, M/s GSL (India) Ltd. and Accused No.4 (present petitioner) Sh. M.C. Jain, Director, M/s GSL (India) Ltd. approached complainant in month of June 1996 and requested for inter-corporate loan of ₹ 25 Lakhs at 31% interest and promised to repay the loan amount within 90 days. The accused persons while obtaining aforesaid loan dishones ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
