2018 (8) TMI 1219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and it was subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The brief case of the respondent/complainant is that the respondent company entered into a dealership agreement with the first petitioner company, represented by its Director, the 2nd petitioner on 17.06.2008 and in the course of business transaction between the respondent/ complainant company and the first petitioner company, there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 70,97,316.51p due and payable by the first petitioner company, for which the first petitioner company, represented by the 2nd petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., branch manager, Chennai branch to represent them. 3] The statutory notices have not been served on the petitioners and therefore, the respondent/ complainant cannot maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4] The respondent/complainant has not also averred in their complaint that the 2nd petitioner is in charge of the day to day affairs of the company and hence the complaint in C.C.No.106 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed. 5. Per contra, Mr.Rajkishore Bhagwatsaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would contend that though 11 cheques were presented beyond the period of 6 months, there are 5 more cheques, which were returned for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement" a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the respondent, since the 2nd petitioner has issued the cheques in favour of the respondent/complainant, there is no necessity to aver specifically in the complaint that the 2nd petitioner was in charge of day to day affairs of the company and therefore, he can be prosecuted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no notices were issued to them, it is clear from the records that statutory notice was issued to both the petitioners to the addresses mentioned in the complaint and it is not the case of the petitioners that the addresses mentioned in the complaint were not their addresses. The Apex Court time and again has....