9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque that was dishonoured had been issued by any of the petitioners. The Form-32 produced before the learned Trial Court was by the complainant/respondent himself and he did not dispute the genuineness of that Form that he had placed on the record. When the document was not disputed and it is a form that is filed as a statutory requirement entailing consequences for false information being furnished to the Registrar of Companies, on the mere say so of the complainant that the present petitioners were still active Directors, the learned Trial Court chose to reject their plea for discharge. It was of the view that without the certified copies, the undisputed documents could not be accepted. The proof that they would have led as evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the summoning order was faulty for two reasons. Firstly, the legal notice dated 31st May, 2016 issued under Sections 138/141/142 of the NI Act was only sent to accused No.1/M/s. PMS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, accused no.2/Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma and accused no.3/Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra whereas the complaint was filed with the memo of parties showing six accused persons including the two petitioners herein. The Legal Notice has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioners had resigned from the accused No.1 company/M/s. PMS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on 1st May, 2009 and 1st October, 2010 respectively and despite bringing this fact to the notice of the learned Trial C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before this Court. 6. But it is to be noticed that the reasoning of the learned Trial Court is rather strange in view of the two facts recorded in the impugned order. One is that the petitioners, as the accused, had relied upon on the Form-32 filed by the complainant at the time of pre-summoning evidence. The second is that in the reply to the application of the petitioners as accused for discharge, the complainant has not disputed the genuineness of Form-32 but has simply denied the fact of resignation. 7. In other words, the Form-32 produced before the learned Trial Court was by the complainant/respondent himself and he did not dispute the genuineness of that Form that he had placed on the record. When the document was not disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
