Punjab-Haryana High Court M/S Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn Ltd. And ... vs M/S Trident Ltd

 
FREE EXCERPT

Punjab-Haryana:

CRM M-11392 of 2013 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM M-11392 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 5, 2014

M/s Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn Limited and others .....Petitioners

Vs.

M/s Trident Limited

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.-

Present:- Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Chawla, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate

-.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide summoning order dated January 2, 2013 passed by CJM, Barnala.

The continuation of proceedings against all the petitioners have been challenged inter-alia on two grounds-- Gupta Sanjay

2014.03.06 17:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

CRM M-11392 of 2013 [2] i) The trial Court has not adhered to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. which was incorporated by amendment Act of 2005 in Cr.P.C. as the accused are residing outside the jurisdiction of Barnala. The trial Court ought to have held an inquiry. ii) The second ground for quashing of the proceedings taken by the counsel for the petitioner is that 12 persons have been arraigned as accused on the basis of vague averments in the complaint. As per complaint annexure P-1, it was petitioner No.2 Mata Prashad Agarwal, Managing Director of M/s Shri Lakshmi Cotsyn Limited who had signed the cheque in dispute on behalf of petitioner No.1. The other accused have been arraigned on the basis of averments that they were negligent in not requiring accused No.1 and 2 to make the payment of cheque amount to the complainant Company and they connived with accused No.1 and 2.

I have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint and I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be partly allowed qua petitioners No.3 to 12. There is no specific averment qua said accused Gupta Sanjay

2014.03.06 17:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

CRM M-11392 of 2013 [3] persons as to how they are incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the Company.

Petition is dismissed qua petitioners No.1 and 2, however, the proceedings qua petitioners No.3 to 12 are quashed in view of the judgment in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, JT 2005 (8) SC 450 laying down that it is necessary to specifically aver in a...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL