TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.19281/2009 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is seen that the complaint is with reference to dishonour of five cheques issued by the first accused - company in favour of common respondent in these two petitions, who is the complainant in C.C.No.25456/2009. 2. The fact that the aforesaid five cheques are with reference to a legal debt due from the first accused - company in favour of the complainant is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that all cheques are dated 03.01.2009 and are issued with reference to money which was due to be paid on 31.01.2009. The aforesaid five cheques when presented for realisation, came to be dishonoured. In respect of w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 912 and the third one is the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of M/s. Mother Care (India) Limited (In Liquidation), Rep. by the Official Liquidator, Bangalore Vs. Prof. Ramaswamy P. Aiyar reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1081 and also the unreported Judgment of the High Court of Madras in the matter of Ms. Renuka Ramnath Vs Ms. Bala Deshpande dated 30.08.2013. 5. On going through all these Judgments, it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioners is trying to rely upon the first Judgment, which is with reference to a matter where the Deputy General Manager of a Book Business Industry having more than 100 branches issuing cheques which are bounced was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(NCT of Delhi) and another reported in AIR 2007 SC 912, the relevant paragraph at 12 would support the case of the complainant inasmuch as the first accused - Company is run by the Venture Funds Management Company Limited, namely ICICI, therefore the defence which is taken that they are just nominated Directors on the Board of M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited would not support their case seeking quashing of the proceedings, for the reason that their nomination is neither ornamental nor a mere formality. Since their nomination is to protect the interest of holding Company, which has invested the funds to run the said company through the supervision of their Directors. 7. The third Judgment, which is relied upon by the petitioners is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lopment Credit Bank Limited, at the hands of Madras High Court. After going through all the four Judgments, it is clearly seen that except the fourth Judgment, which is rendered by the High Court of Madras, the facts in the present case is totally different from the facts as stated in the aforesaid three cases. In the instant case, there is a clear attempt on the part of the petitioners herein to escape the clutches of law. It appears, in the proceedings before Madras High Court, the same stand was taken as in the present case. The petitioners pleaded resignation from the post of Director without producing the relevant documents to support the same. By accepting the pleadings the High Court of Madras granted the relief of quashing in the ma....