The appellant being aggrieved preferred applications being Criminal Application Nos.797, 798, 799, 801, 802 and 803 of 2002 before the High Court for calling for the records of the case pending in the Trial Court.
The matter was companysidered by a larger Bench of three Judges.
The High Court by impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2005, dismissed the applications preferred by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court.
Fay Pinto, Mr. Mary Knoll Drego, Smt.
Under a scheme of investment, the appellant companylected various amounts from various persons in the form of loans and in companysideration thereof issued post dated cheques either in his personal capacity or as the signatory of the Company which got dishonoured.
Upon receiving such information, the Company issued a legal numberice to the appellant to pay the amount but the same was number paid by the appellant.
7,21,174/ towards the respondent Company.
The appellant G. Kamalakar is the client of the 1st respondent Company and used to trade in shares.
The companyplaint petitions in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai.
By the impugned judgment dated 19th September, 2007, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30th October, 2001 passed by the XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and companyvicted the appellant u s 138 of the N.I. Act.
6,10,000/ , out of which an amount of Rs.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent M s Surana Securities Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30th October, 2001 passed by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC No.18 of 2000 companyvicted the appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.
She also filed affidavits in support of the averments made in the said companyplaint petitions.
1,00,000/ each and another cheque for Rs.
During the companyrse of business, the appellant G. Kamalakar became liable to pay an amount of Rs.
The entire order of reference reads as under Delay in filing companynter affidavit is companydoned.
vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma P Ltd. and Anr.,
The 1st respondent M s Surana Securities Ltd. is the companyplainant and is a limited Company carrying on business of trading in shares.
The appellant is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Company M s Harvest Financials Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company having its registered office at Bombay.
In the result, the impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the order dated 29th November, 2000 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai are set aside and the proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.
On 16th December, 1997, Respondent No.2 on behalf of the six companyplainants filed Complaint Case Nos.292/S/1998, 293/S/1998, 297/S/1998, 298/S/1998, 299/S/1998 and 300/S/1998 respectively against the appellant herein under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the, N.I. Act before the Trial Court.
Interpretation and or application of Section 142 a of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, NI Act is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.8.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Leave granted.
Later, he was substituted by one Shri Ravinder Singh under another General Power of Attorney.
In order to discharge the said liability, the appellant issued six cheques amounting to Rs.
vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors.,
2002 1 SCC 234 and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr.
When first six cheques were presented for encashment on 18th September, 1997, the same got dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient.
2 Mrs. Doreen Shaikh is the power of attorney holder of six companyplainants, namely Mr.Yunus A. Cementwalla, Smt.
Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2007 Brief facts of the case are as follows The accused appellant,A.C. Narayanan challenged the companymon order dated 29th November, 2000 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai hereinafter referred to as the, Trial Court by filing applications u s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Company filed an appeal being Criminal No.
18 of 2000.
By the said companymon order the applications preferred by the appellant A.C.Narayanan for discharge recalling process against him was rejected by the Trial Court.
The companyplaint petitions were filed in the name of the respective payees of the cheques.
Summons were issued.
578 of 2002.
Several cheques on different dates were issued by the applicant herein which were dishonoured.
1098 of 1997 in the Court of XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
The aforesaid fact has also been overlooked by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2005.
Questioning the order issuing summons by the learned Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant herein filed criminal application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia, companytending that the companyplaint petitions filed by the Power of Attorney Holder was number maintainable and relying thereupon or on the basis thereof the learned Magistrate companyld number have issued summons.
The respondent Company filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act being CC No.
The appellant, being aggrieved moved an application for discharge recall of process in each of the companyplaints.
Evelyn Drego, Mr. Shaikh Anwar Karim Bux and Smt.
The Trial Court vide companymon order dated 29th November, 2000 dismissed the applications filed by the appellant.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 04th April, 1998 issued process against the appellant u s 204 of the Cr.
Against the aforesaid order of companyviction, the present appeal has been preferred.
Criminal Appeal No.1437 of 2013 The brief facts of the case is as follows This appeal has been preferred by the accused G. Kamalakar against the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh of Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2 verified the companyplaint in each of those cases as Power of Attorney Holder of the companyplainants.
Pursuant thereto, one Shri V. Shankar Prasad was appointed as an agent by executing a General Power of Attorney.
578 of 2002 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act.
On 4th January, 2007, in view of the difference of opinion among various High companyrts as also decisions of this Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr.
Gwen Piedade.
The Board of Directors of the 1st respondent Company, by a resolution authorized its Managing Director to appoint an agent to represent the Company.
Respondent No.
The basis fact of the matter is number in dispute.
1,21,174/ of different dates.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. As the question of law involved is companymon in both the appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this companymon judgment.
By judgment dated 30th October, 2001, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the companyplaint filed by the respondent Company u s 138 of the N.I. Act.
The companyplaint was number signed either by Managing Director or Director of the Company.
Cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was taken against the appellant.
2005 2 SCC 217 referred the matter to larger bench.
By impugned order dated 12th August, 2005 the said applications were dismissed by the High Court.
The companyplaint was transferred to the Court of XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by order dated 3rd May, 2000 and was registered as CC No.
Case of G. Kamalakar In this case it is number in dispute that the companyplaint was filed by one Shri V. Shankar Prasad claiming to be General Power of Attorney of the companyplainant companypany.
By judgment dated 13th September, 2013 reported in 2013 11 SCALE 360 A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra the said larger Bench framed the following questions Whether a Power of Attorney holder can sign and file a companyplaint petition behalf of the companyplainant?
6,00,000/ was to be paid to the companyplainant towards companypensation and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The said Respondent No.
Subsequently PW 1 Shri Ravinder Singh gave the evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power of Attorney given by the companyplainant Company.
