9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heques were alleged to be issued by A1 on behalf of the firm as per the complaint. But the copy of the cheques filed would disclose that they were signed by A1 as the proprietor for Ayyappa Traders. The petitioners filed the income tax returns of the 1st petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein he was shown as the Proprietor of Ayyappa Traders - The 2nd respondent - complainant failed to file any documentary evidence to show that the 3rd petitioner was a partnership firm. As the person who issued the cheque was the Sole Proprietor of M/s.Ayyappa Traders, he alone was liable for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of NI Act. As the provisions of Section 141 of the NI Act would not apply in the case of a sole proprietorship concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the wholesale dealers and distributors throughout the State. The petitioners were the proprietors/partners of M/s.Ayyappa Traders, wholesale dealers of Atta, Maida, Rawa, food grains etc. In the process of his business, the complainant supplied 120 bags of Idly rawa, each bag containing 50 kgs., @ ₹ 810/- per bag, to the petitioners firm on 16.02.2012, which would come to ₹ 97,200/-, after adding VAT the total would come to ₹ 1,02,060/-. A1 on behalf of their firm issued two cheques bearing No.925754 dated 05.03.2004 for ₹ 50,000/- and cheque bearing No.925755 dated 07.03.2012 for ₹ 52,000/- (since a bag was damaged paid ₹ 60/- less). Both the cheques were drawn on account No.16700210000397 of UCO Bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the income tax authorities also completed his assessments considering him as a proprietor. The legal notice itself was not maintainable and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.236 of 2012. 5. The complainant - 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit submitting that he supplied the required food material to the petitioners as per their demand. On receipt of the same, the 2nd petitioner passed a receipt endorsing and by putting his signature and date along with his phone number. Even the visiting card of Ayyappa Traders i.e. 3rd respondent bore two names printed on the top with two cell numbers mentioned therein. The two names were pertaining to A1 and A2 respectively. Their respective phone numbers were me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Ayyappa Traders. It was not mentioned whether the 3rd petitioner was a firm or proprietary concern and what was the status of the 1st petitioner A1, whether he was a proprietor or partner. The cheques were alleged to be issued by A1 on behalf of the firm as per the complaint. But the copy of the cheques filed would disclose that they were signed by A1 as the proprietor for Ayyappa Traders. The petitioners filed the income tax returns of the 1st petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein he was shown as the Proprietor of Ayyappa Traders. They also filed the balance sheet filed by the 1st petitioner under capital account. The audit reports filed by them also would disclose the designation of the 1st petitioner as Proprietor. As s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
