9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietorship Firm M/s Amax Agro Exports (the petitioner No. 2) and the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited. Whether the Petitioner can be summoned under S.148 NI Act for a dishonoured Cheque that has not been signed by him but by one Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, who is neither an employee nor a Legal Representative of the petitioner or his Proprietorship Firm? - HELD THAT:- Pertinently, the Cheques in question have been dishonoured on the ground of Account Closed vide Cheque Return Memo dated 03.09.2020. Since, the petitioner No. 1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar is not a signatory to the said two Cheques, he canot not be held liable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. The claim of the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner No.1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar is the sole Proprietor of his Proprietorship Firm i.e., M/s Amax Agro Exports, which is the petitioner No. 2 herein, and engaged in trading business in agricultural products mainly fruits and vegetables. The respondent No. 2-Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its business relations with the petitioner, the sole Proprietor of M/s Amax Agro Exports. 3. The respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali issued the Cheque bearing Nos. 001037 and 001038 both dated 20.07.2020, both in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank Limited in favour of the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited. 4. The respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited had filed the Complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited. 9. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide Order dated 11.01.2021 summoned the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali. 10. Aggrieved by the Summoning Orders dated 11.01.2021, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. 11. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Order on the ground that the aforesaid Cheques have been signed and issued by the respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali in his individual capacity which had no connection with the petitioners herein or the alleged business transaction between the petitioner No. 1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar through its Proprietorship Firm M/s Amax Agro Exports (the petitioner N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Summoning Orders dated 11.01.2021, in both the Complaints, suffer from illegality and the summoning Order are liable to be set aside. 16. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 had contested the present petition on the ground that the Cheque though signed by Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, but he had signed for and on behalf of the Proprietorship Firm, which is the petitioner No. 2 herein, of which the petitioner No. 1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar is the sole Proprietor. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned Complaint Case bearing Nos. CC/NI Act/299/2020 and CC/NI Act/297/2020 and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. 17. Submissions heard. 18. In these cases, the Cheques No. 001037 and 001038 dated 20.07.2020 we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that . 21. The Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, AIR 2013 SC 2634 , interpreted Section 138 of the NI Act and laid down that Section 138 has five components, namely: 1. drawing of the cheque; 2. presentation of the cheque to the bank; 3. returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; 4. giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and 5. failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 22. The Cheque is essentially a contract whereby the Drawer of the Cheque undertakes that on presentation of the Cheque, the specified amount shall be released in favour of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate entity and in fact, it is only the sole Proprietor who can be summoned. This aspect has also been mentioned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the Summoning Order dated 11.01.2021 vide which the petitioner, as the sole Proprietor, has been summoned, while his Proprietorship Firm has been held to have no independent entity. 26. But the core question which arises is whether the Petitioner can be summoned under S.148 NI Act for a dishonoured Cheque that has not been signed by him but by one Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, who is neither an employee nor a Legal Representative of the petitioner or his Proprietorship Firm. The said two Cheques pertain to the account of the respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali and not to the account of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
