9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were to be encashed only if the pledged goods were not delivered. However, the pledged goods i.e., Sarso Seeds got stolen and the FIR bearing No. 710/2018 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further the defence of the petitioner that the ledger accounts on which the respondent No. 2-complainant has relied, are not correct. It is quite evident from the submissions made that there is no denial to the issuance of the cheques and its subsequent dishonour on the ground of insufficiency of funds - All the contentions raised by way of present petition are, in fact, the defence of the petitioner which are required to be proved during the trial. There is no infirmity in the impugned Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, belonging to the petitioner, was pledged to the husband of the respondent No. 2-complainant on certain terms and conditions. The cheques in question mentioned in the Pledge Agreement were to be encashed only upon returning of the pledged goods i.e., Sarso Seeds. Another Agreement dated 06.03.2018 was also executed in terms of which, the material worth Rs. 4-5 crores was lying in the godown of the pledge. 5. It is submitted that at the time of execution of the captioned Agreements, blank signed documents were handed over which have now been filed and have been made the basis of the Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. The petitioner reserves its right to take appropriate legal action against the respondent No. 2 qua the misuse of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were available was less than the seeds stored. On counting the entire inventory by the Agricultural Department Officials, it was found that only 3750.24 quintals were left, whereas 9600 quintals of Sarso Seeds had been stored. It was a clear case where respondent No. 2-complainant had removed the pledged goods for mala fide purposes. 11. It is further submitted that on 18.10.2018, in the Seed Court, stand taken by the Lohias was that the material which was lying in the godown on the date of sealing was 6200 quintals and that amount picked up/inventorized was merely 3700 quintals, which if calculated at the rate of Rs. 40/- per kg., the value of removed the goods/material comes around Rs. 2.48 crores. 12. The respondent No. 2-complainant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Moreover, the theft has been committed in the Godown. 17. The respondent No. 2-complainant has failed to perform her part of the contract and has misused the blank cheques given by the petitioner. The petitioner is yet to receive the articles, for which the money was pledged. The ledger accounts relied upon by the petitioner show the outstanding amount of Rs. 51,36,498/- while the two cheques add upto Rs. 57,15,000/-. 18. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2-complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands and the impugned Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018 is liable to be quashed. 19. Submissions heard and record perused. 20. From the bare perusal of the Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 and the submissions made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
