9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping parties are referred in accordance with the ranks held by them before the trial court. 3. The substance of the complaint is that accused No.1 is a private limited company which runs business in the name and style of M/s.Wider Horizons Software Solutions (P) Ltd., Accused No.2 is the Managing Director and Accused No.3 is the Director of accused No.1-company and signatory to the cheque. Complainant entered into an agreement with accused company dated 15.08.2012 for setting up `Wider Horizons Spoken English Institute Branch at Banashankari, Bengaluru. As a part of the agreement complainant had invested an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and in turn the complainant was entitled to get returns of 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant was represented by power of attorney holder. However on the date of presentation of the complaint it was not produced. Mr.Reddy would also submit that the very complaint is against the language of Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that provides for filing of the complaint within one month from the date of arising of cause of action. He would also submit that there is an agreement that within two years no investor can take a case against the company. 6. In the overall circumstances of the case offence of a cheque which is a negotiable instrument is contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is considered as offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provided where accused fails to honou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 14.09.2013 and second presentation was on 12.11.2013 and legal notice issued on 27.11.2013 and second notice was issued on 10.12.2013 to respondent No.3 only. Complaint was presented. Learned counsel Sri.Nanda Kumar for appellant in support of his submissions relied on the following decisions. 1. MSR Leathers Vs S.Palaniappan and anr - (2013) 1 SCC 177 2. Sicagen India Limited Vs Mahindra Vadineni and others -(2019) 4 SCC 271 3. Kalaselvi Vs B.G.Patil -2009 SCC Online Kar 757 4. S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Neeta Bhalla and others -(2005) 8 SCC 89. 9. Now the scope of Section 142(b) to be understood by reading the same which is as under: 142 Cognizance of offences. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued it was addressed to all the three accused persons and last notice that was issued was given to accused No.3 alone. Thus, that cannot be accepted. In the constructive imputation, notice to be considered as they are in the same cluster of management of the company. Accused No.3 is the authorized signatory to cheque. In the second notice issued address, names are there but notice is addressed to accused No.3. In the light of first presentation due knowledge of impugned notice have thereunder the impact and hyper technicality cannot be allowed to veto the regular process of law. In the context and circumstances I find there is no lacunae in presentation of the cheque. Another point that was submitted by learned counsel Sri.Chokka Reddy for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
