TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1973 have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, seeking to quash the aforesaid Complaint Case bearing Nos. CC/NI Act/299/2020 and CC/NI Act/297/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act, 1881") and the Cognizance and Summoning Orders, both dated 11.01.2021 respectively along with consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner No.1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar is the sole Proprietor of his Proprietorship Firm i.e., M/s Amax Agro Exports, which is the petitioner No. 2 herein, and engaged in trading business in agricultural products mainly fruits and vegetables. The respondent No. 2-Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Closed" vide Cheque Return Memo dated 03.09.2020. 7. The Statutory Demand Notice dated 16.09.2020 was served on the petitioners-accused in both cases to which a Reply dated 12.10.2020 was sent by the petitioner No. 1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar, wherein he denied any relationship with the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited/Complainant. 8. Consequently, the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 was filed for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Tiger Logistics (India) Limited. 9. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide Order dated 11.01.2021 summoned the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali. 10. Aggrieved by the Summoning Orders dated 11.01.2021, the petitioners have preferred the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid two Cheque (which are the subject matter of the two Complaints) are signed by the respondent No. 3-Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, neither the petitioner No. 1-Bipin Lal Singh Pagar nor his Proprietorship Firm i.e., the petitioner No. 2, is in any way connected to these alleged Cheques. Hence, Section 138 and/or Section 141 of the NI Act, 1881 are not attracted against the petitioners. 15. It is, therefore, asserted that the Summoning Orders dated 11.01.2021, in both the Complaints, suffer from illegality and the summoning Order are liable to be set aside. 16. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 had contested the present petition on the ground that the Cheque though signed by Bhagawat Daulat Gawali, but he had signed for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 2[a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that...." 21. The Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, AIR 2013 SC 2634, interpreted Section 138 of the NI Act and laid down that Section 138 has five components, namely: 1. drawing of the cheque; 2. presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well." 25. In the present case, admittedly, the transactions were between the respondent No. 2-Complainant and the petitioner, the sole Proprietor of M/s Amax Agro Exports. The Proprietorship Firm has no separate entity and in fact, it is only the sole Proprietor who can be summoned. This aspect has also been mentioned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the Summoning Order dated 11.01.2021 vide which the petitioner, as the sole Proprietor, has been summoned, while his P....