TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et Court, New Delhi in CC. No. 14/2013. 2. Brief facts as per the complaint are that the respondent No.2- Ark Fluid System Components Pvt. Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at F-7B, Okhla Industrial Area-I, New Delhi. The said respondent No.2 through its Director-Ajay Kashyap filed a complaint before the Court of Learned ACMM, Saket, New Delhi under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused persons, i.e. (1) DD Global Capital Ltd., (2) Sanjay Gambhir, (3) Narender Kumar, (4) Tarun Kumar and (5) Vipin Kumar (petitioner hrein). The said DD Global Capital Ltd. is a family holding company which was previously known as DD Township Ltd. a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cheques would be encashed on its first presentation. 5. Thereafter, when the said cheques were presented for encashment by the respondent No.2/complainant through its banker, i.e. Corporation Bank, GK-II, New Delhi, all the said four cheques were dishonoured vide return memo dated 09.11.2011 with remarks "stop payment". On this the respondent No.2/complainant issued legal demand notice dated 02.12.2011 to the accused persons and when the accused persons failed to repay/refund the respondent No.2/complainant, on 24.01.2012 the respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138/141 NI Act before the Court of ACMM, Saket, New Delhi being CC. No. 14/2013. 6. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.01.2012 the learned Metropoli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 138 read with 141 N.I. Act, summoned the present petitioner vide order dated 24.01.2012. It is further submitted that during the course of the trial, the petitioner moved an application for discharge from the complaint case as there was no evidence qua the present petitioner in the said complaint case. The respondent No.2/complainant preferred not to file any response to the said application. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 17.01.2015, the respondent No.2/complainant took the plea that he wants to file additional documents which is not permissible in law which was opposed by the petitioner. Thereafter on 05.03.2015 the complainant filed an application for taking on record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d stage comes only after Section 251 Cr.P.C. and not before that. In the instant case, after disclosing the evidence, the complainant has moved the said application which cannot be permitted to be considered the same at the time of framing of the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the said documents have been concealed from the possession of the respondent No.2/complainant at the relevant point of time and later on taking after thought version that those documents are not in their possession at the relevant time, i.e. at the time of filing of the complaint. He further submits that the petitioner has certain rights under the procedure and to take his defence but this right has to be protected by the Court if the same is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the accused company for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 which were filed by the accused persons on 29.11.2014 and 29.12.2014, and the certificate issued by the Company Secretary in compliance of the statutory provisions of the Companies Act, which indicates that the petitioner was involved and was responsible in dealing with the accounts of the accused company. 16. Since the documents in question are relevant documents for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner was the director who was dealing and responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused company and the documents so produced before the Lower Court would be the documents of the petitioner himself therefore, it is for the petitioner to explain its creation in a....