2018 (9) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rporated under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No.2 contested the complaint through its authorized representative.   2. Case of the appellant in the complaint filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments (in short 'NI Act') before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was that the appellant and respondent No. 2 both are the companies registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 2 through its Director Prem Chand Gupta approached the appellant company and took a financial loan of Rs.10.03 lakhs and a buy back agreement to this effect was executed between the parties on 1st October, 1996 which was executed before the learned Trial Court as Ex. CW-1/3. Since the respondent No. 2 company failed to honour the said buy back agre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in connivance with one of its staff members and there was no legally enforceable liability against the respondent no. 1 and in favour of the appellant. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that there is no provision for interest in the buyback agreement Ex. CW-1/3 much less of 3% compound interest per annum. No request was made to respondent No. 2 to buy back the shares and repay the amount in terms of the buyback agreement along with the 3% quarterly compound interest. Cheque amount in dispute was Rs.17,02,015/- as against the alleged liability of Rs.10,03,000/- even as per the complainant which is highly improbable. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the defence taken was more probable and trustworthy. Further the appellant failed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....15/- in the open market at the relevant period. Learned Trial Court further noted that even if interest @3% per annum is calculated on the amount of Rs.11,37,500/- as demanded vide letter dated 15th October, 1997, the amount calculated as on 21st December, 1998 was Rs.16,17,451/- and not Rs.17,02,015/- as written in the alleged cheque. 6. The learned Trial Court also noted that to fasten the criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act the liability of the accused on the date of cheque alone is material and cannot be increased based on conjunctures and surmises. The learned Trial Court further noted that though signatures on the impugned cheque was admitted by the respondent No. 2 company however, it was the case of the respondent ....