9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .I. Act') and was sentenced accordingly. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court was that the accused had availed a personal loan facility from the complainant, which is a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956, and thereafter, towards the part repayment of the loan amount, he had issued two cheques in favour of the complainant, both drawn on ICICI Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, both dated 13.02.2010, for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. When the said cheques were presented by the complainant for their realisation through its Banker, both cheques came to be returned unpaid with the Banker's shara "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing represented by its learned counsel. 8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court pertaining to the matter were called for and the same are placed before the Court. 9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The only point that arises for my consideration is, "Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity, illegality, impropriety warranting any interference at the hands of this Court". 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that he would not deny or dispute the alleged fact of availment of personal loan by the accused from the complainant-Company and also issuance of two cheques and their dishonour by the Banker when presented f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legal notice issued by the complainant demanding the cheque amount. Mr. V. Jansi Rao, who was examined as PW-1 in his capacity as General Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant-Company has reiterated the contents of the complaint and to show that there was a loan transaction between the complainant-Company and the accused, he has produced loan application at Ex. P-8, on Demand Promissory Note at Ex. P-9, loan sanction letter at Ex. P-10, Electronic Clearing Service (ECS) Mandate at Ex. P-11, Commercial Tax Registration Certificate of the proprietorship concern of the accused at Ex. P-12, a copy of telephone bill at Ex. P-13, VAT Certificate of the proprietorship concern of the accused and the Income-tax return of the accused for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lainant, the accused had taken a defence in the cross-examination of PW-1 to the effect that the alleged loan was granted to M/s. Vertical Network Communication, a proprietorship concern, however, the accused had not taken the said loan in his personal capacity, as such, the accused was not liable for the repayment of the loan amount. PW-1 though admitted that the loan was granted to M/s. Vertical Network Communication, which is a proprietorship concern, but, denied that the accused as a Proprietor of the said concern, had not availed the loan in his personal capacity. 16. No doubt, the loan documents mentioned above go to show that the loan was granted in the name of M/s. Vertical Network Communication, a proprietorship concern, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e complaint and to proceed in the criminal prosecution. It is further observed in the impugned judgment passed in the Criminal Appeal that as per the documents produced by the complainant at the time of arguments, the complainant has produced the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Petition No. 603/2009, wherein it is mentioned that Future Capital Credit Ltd., and Future Capital Services Ltd., were merged with each other and they became a single entity called as "Future Capital Services Ltd.," The said order of the High Court of Bombay further reveals that the Future Capital Holdings Ltd., is a part and parcel of Future Capital Services Ltd., The said finding and the availability of documents with the records placed in this petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor. In this regard, Delhi High Court in Shankar's case (supra), has observed that the proprietorship firm is not a legal entity and it can be sued in the name of its Proprietor. Even if the notice is sent to the Proprietor of a firm in his individual capacity without mentioning him as Proprietor of the firm, still, it will be a valid notice. It further observed that prosecution of a Proprietor of a proprietorship firm for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the proprietorship firm, is valid prosecution. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice sent to the accused by the complainant-Company was invalid, is also not acceptable. 20. Barring the above, the petitioner/accused has not taken any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
