TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants had jointly sent their complaints to the Officer Incharge/D.C.P. Economic Offence Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, against M/s Pritika Fashions Partnership Firm and M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited, M/s Expression Fashion Inc, M/s Expression Fashion, a Partnership Firm, Mr. Amit Sarup (petitioner herein) and Mr. Pradeep Sachdeva. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner alongwith Mr. Pradeep Sachdeva was partner of M/S Pritika Fashion, firm having their Office at 81, 2nd Floor, Vijay Chowk, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 and that it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act . They had taken showrooms on rent / lease for the purpose of selling readymade garments, accessories, etc. and both accused appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 20.1.2017 and in said case, the Court was pleased to frame the issue i.e. whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged by the defendant. Said issue was decided in favour of plaintiff by holding that the Directors of the Company i.e. petitioner herein, are not liable to pay any amount and the Court was pleased to issue decree against Company i.e. M/s Pritika Fashion Pvt. Ltd. 6. It is further submitted that Complainant No. 3/Bhawna Balani had entered into an Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement with accused persons on 10.1.2012 and showroom bearing no. 204-205, 2nd Floor, City Centre Mall, Rohini, Delhi, was handed over to her and she received Rs. 5,93,640/- as profit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Private Limited in August, 2011 and Shop No. 104, First Floor, Sahara Mall, Gurgaon was handed over to him where he worked and in the year 2014, cheque of security amount was returned to him. Thereafter, he filed a case under Section 138 of NI Act which is pending disposal. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Hemant Khurana has furnished statement of account of his firm to the IO of the case and according to said statement, he has shown that he has to recover balance amount from Company. 12. It is further submitted that complainant No. 7, namely Amisha Gupta, complainant No. 8, namely Sakriti Mittal, alongwith Rajinder Mittal have entered into an Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding and a showroom bearing No. G GA Plot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused and he has received Rs. 4, 67,000/- towards profit and for cheque of security, he has also filed a case under Section 138 of NI Act which is pending disposal. 17. Further, complainant No. 12 has also filed a Civil Suit under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. against M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited and said suit was decreed against Company as well as against Directors i.e. petitioner herein and Pradeep Sachdeva. 18. It is further submitted that petitioner has filed a R.F.A. (OS) No.32/2015 before this Court and vide order dated 7.7.2015, Division Bench set aside decree dated 18.12.2014 against petitioner herein because only petitioner has preferred appeal against judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014. 19. The complainant No. 4, nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a notice dated 6.12.2012 through her counsel Mr. Mahesh Singh, Advocate and in said notice, it is nowhere mentioned that any cheating had been committed by petitioner. The dispute between complainant and petitioner is of a civil nature due to the fact that since inception of memorandum of understanding entered into between complainant and petitioner, intention of petitioner was not malafide/dishonest. 23. In addition to above, petitioner has already been convicted under Section 138 NI Act and petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 629/2014 and in the said revision petition, petitioner has filed a Criminal Misc. Bail No. 163/2019 and petitioner was granted bail vide Order dated 25.1.2019 passed by this Court. 24. On ....