9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House. Since the parties are the same and the pleas taken are materially the same, these two petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondent/Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. instituted the two complaints against Internet (India) Technologies Ltd. arrayed as accused No.1 in the complaint they had filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. They also arrayed the Directors too as the accused in the said complaint. 3. The stand taken by the petitioner in both the cases is that it was the company that had availed the loan facility against the pledge of shares in terms of the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement dated 25th June, 2007, to the extent of Rs. 1,89,23,046/-, as on 20th July, 2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the averment would not justify the summoning of such a Director as an accused. 6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in (i) Sabitha Ramamurthy & Ors. Vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya (2006) 10 SCC 581, (ii) Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State, (2007) 3 SCC 693, (iii) N.K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 481 & (iv) N.S.I.C. Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the signatory of the impugned cheques was Mr. Mahesh Jain, who is arrayed as accused No.5 in the complaint. The petitioner had resigned from the company on 31st March, 2007, well before the cheques had been issued as also much before the loan was sanctioned. Reliance has been pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not a case where the documents produced by the petitioner is of such sterling quality that the court would be prompt in accepting the stand of the accused, to hold that to continue proceedings against him would be an abuse of the process of the court. 11. In the first place, the 'Registration Kit Loan Against Shares' placed on the record as Annexure R-2, lists out the Full Time Directors of the Company at page 12 of the e-file and the petitioner has been named as one such Full Time Director. Had he resigned before the execution of the said document, why would his name be included? If the petitioner has an explanation, he can offer it but only at his turn, during trial. The document, it may be noted once again, is signed on 25th June, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
