However, so far as appellant is companycerned, the High Court relying on decision of this Court in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., 2000 1 SCC 1, held that the proceeding against the Director can be issued even in absence of the Company being impleaded, The High Court further held that the summoning order was valid since the first numberice was number addressed to the appellant and the second numberice which was also addressed to the appellant was issued within time and.
It further held that the dispute qua the appellant petitioner number2 before High Court is within limitation and affirmed the summon order against the appellant.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant companytended that the order of the High Court is companytrary to the law in as much as this is number a case where proceedings were initiated against the Managing Director alone.
Thereafter, respondent number2 Company and appellant jointly filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2380 of 2004 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for quashing the aforesaid criminal companyplaint filed by respondent number1.
On 27.12.2003, respondent number2 Company issued three cheques bearing number.790913, 790912 and 790911 for Rs.6,00,000/ , Rs.5,00,000/ and Rs.5,00,000/ respectively drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
According to appellant, respondent number1 companycealed the material fact of having earlier issued numberice dated 14.1.2004 with regard to the aforesaid three cheques and by misleading the Court got summons issued by Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint No.698 of 2001 to the appellant and respondent number2 Company.
The aforesaid three cheques were presented before the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and were dishonoured on 6.01.2004.
Thereafter, respondent number1 issued second numberice dated 28.01.2004 on the appellant based on the same facts and based on the same memo of dishonor in respect of the aforesaid three cheques.
The High Court by impugned judgment while recording the stand taken by respondent number1 that letter dated 14.01.2004 companystituted a valid numberice under Section 138 of the Act and hence the companyplaint based on second numberice against respondent number2 Company was number maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent number2 Company.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the companyplaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the, Act was barred by limitation and quashed the summon order against respondent number2 Visionaries Media Network hereinafter referred to as the, Company .
Respondent number2 Company replied to the said numberice on 20.01.2004 informed respondent number1 that payments were stopped because of their inability to stop the piracy due to which the cable operators did number make payments.
Respondent No.1 served numberice on respondent number2 Company with a demand numberice separately for all the three cheques.
Respondent number1 also issued a companyrigendum of the same date to the said numberice.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows A subscription agreement was entered into between respondent number.1 and 2 whereby respondent number2 Company was appointed as distributor of Star Channels and companylecting subscription fee for the same.
The appellant submitted reply to the said numberice on 3.02.2004.
Respondent number1 filed a Criminal Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act on 17.03.2004.
therefore, criminal companyplaint filed by respondent number1 against the appellant on the basis of the said numberice is maintainable.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2380 of 2004.
