2020 (9) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....four persons, 1st accused being the company and accused 2 to 4 are its Directors. 3. The gist of the case is that the complainant is a partnership firm engaged in trading of Cotton waste. Accused No.1 is a textile mill engaged in manufacturing of textile goods. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are directors of Accused No.1 and they are conducting day~to~day business operations of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 purchased various quantities of cotton wastes from complainant during the year 2012 and 2013 and the complainant raised invoices for the same. Accused No.1 were making payments to the complainant at regular intervals mostly on bill to bill basis. But all of a sudden, in the year 2013 Accused No.1 stopped the purchase of cotton waste from the compl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany was carried out by the 2nd accused, who was the Managing Director, the 3rd accused is the wife of the 2nd accused and the 4th accused/the petitioner herein, who is the son of the 2nd accused. The petitioner was made as a Director in the 1st accused company, since he happened to be the son of the 2nd accused Managing Director, the 2nd accused and 3rd accused were his parents. Other than this, the petitioner had no role in the business for day~to~day affairs of the 1st accused company. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner was engaged in other businesses and hence, due to pre~occupation with his other activities, he had sent a letter dated 25.03.2015 resigning the post of Director of the 1st accused company. The 1st accused comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nowing well that the petitioner company is liable to make payment to the respondent, had issued the cheque dated 08.07.2015 and with a illegal motive had resigned from the company on 07.04.2015. The other Directors are none other than his parents who had connived with this petitioner. Further the petitioner-s resignation has become a questionable one and the cheque issued for liability is not disputed, it was issued, when the petitioner was the Director of the 1st accused company. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the points raised by the petitioner are to be decided only during trial. The respondent had followed all the mandatory provisions and filed the complaint. 9. The basic averment that the petitioner was a Dire....