TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Opposite Party no. 2 in the year 2021 for the purpose of its dealership and in this regard, a tripartite agreement was executed on December 6, 2021 between Opposite Party no. 2, the petitioner no. 1 and Rashmi export Private Ltd. In terms of the said agreement, the Opposite Party no. 2 was to supply E-rickshaw/spare part to the petitioners and it was agreed between the parties that in case there is any revision in rate of said spare part/E-rickshaw, prior intimation of the same had to be provided to the petitioners. Despite agreement, the Opposite Party no. 2 had supplied 15 E rickshaw to the petitioner as at enhanced rate of Rs.17,51,085/- On July 1, 2022. 4. The Opposite Party no. 2 supplied 15 damaged E-rickshaws to the petitioner, and after that the Opposite Party no. 3 issued notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 by it's a letter dated 11 January, 2023 and clarified the entire scenario stating that the petitioners had till date issued no cheque in favour of the Opposite Party no. 3, and only cheques which had been issued to the Opposite Party no.2, were for the purpose of Security deposit at the time of execution of the Tripartite agreement and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Advocate representing the Opposite Party on the other hand submits that in the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate of the petitioner itself manifest that the Learned Court observed that merely because the respondents have filed a joint complaint against the petitioner in respect of three cheques cannot be proceeded with but the petitioner cannot go scot free. Accordingly, the whole proceeding was not closed and it was allowed to be proceeded in respect of one of the two complainants. 8. The learned Advocate further submits that the legal notice was alleged to have been sent, which reasonably presumed that a lawful debt existence. The complainants companies are sister concern and litigate. Litigant should not suffer for any advice given by the Advocate. That apart N.I Act is a beneficial legislation to protect the interest of the litigants who have suffered financial losses. The learned Advocate has relied upon a decision reported in, Sri Krishna agencies versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another [(2009) 1 SCC 69] where it was held that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding and civil proceeding, if the two arises from separate c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent dates and therefore the learned advocate has rightly raised the question of the maintainability the complaint itself and is liable to be rejected being not in form. 10. In the case of Manzoor Ahmed Sofi (supra) a joint complaint was filed before the Magistrate alleging that by way of an agreement, the accused allotted some work in partnership and an amount was outstanding as the cost of work and the petitioner issued three cheques out of which two were for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs and one cheque for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was issued in favour of the respondent no. 2, which were presented for engagement and were returned on presentation for the reason of insufficiency of funds. Joint legal notice of demand was issued and ultimately the complaint was filed. 11. The only ground agitated was regarding maintainability as it was a joint complaint on behalf of two or more persons is not maintainable as the same is not contemplated either under the provisions of the Cr.Pc or in the N.I Act 1881. The High Court considered various judicial pronouncement and found divergent views expressed by different High courts regarding maintainability of a joint complaint a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an arrangement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of the such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation: For t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. In this case, the dispute was regarding dishonour of cheques attracts the provisions specially mentioned in the Negotiable Instrument Act however the present petitioner never made attempt to invoke the said clause, even when the legal notice was given to M/s Terra Motors and the said company gave reply informing that the cheques were placed for encashment in the month of September, 2023 but dishonoured. Therefore, on that score also, the proceeding cannot be quashed which has been lodged under Section 138 of N.I Act. 18. Lastly, the point regarding premature filing of the complaint it can be seen that the first notice was received on October 13, 2023, and a complaint was lodged on November 22, 2023, that is more than after one month from the date of receipt of notice. The paragraph 13 of the complaint is clear that the notices were again sent through registered post, which was received by accused on November 7, 2023, and if the date of filing the complaint is counted from that date then it would be on the 15th day which may not be considered in terms of the settled law. 19. This Court is unable to accept such contention as it is clear that the notice was received firstly....