TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riminal Complaint bearing CC NI Act/3411/2023 and quashing of the Summoning Order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the learned JMFC (N.I. Act) Digital Court, Delhi against the Petitioner. 2. The Respondent/Complainant Triangles Consolidated Pvt. Ltd engaged in real estate business, entered into a Lease Agreement dated 27.03.2023 with the Accused No. 1 Company, Chink Components Pvt. Ltd., for leasing the property bearing No. D-180, Sector 63, Noida, UP. A Letter of Intent was duly notarised and signed by both the parties and the possession was handed over on the same day. 3. The terms of the Lease were that the terms of the Agreement were that the lease period would be 09 years with a minimum lock-in period of 36 months, at a monthly rent o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18.05.2023, for return of security deposit given by the Complainant to the Accused, at the time of signing of the Agreement. The cheque, however, on presentation was dishonoured vide Return Memo dated 28.05.2023 with the remarks 'Payment stopped by Drawer'. The Complainant served the Legal Notice of Demand dated 25.08.2023, despite which no payment was made against the cheque. 7. Consequently, Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed by the Complainant/Respondent. 8. The Accused/Petitioners were summoned by the learned MM vide Order dated 25.04.2024. 9. The Summoning Order dated 25.04.2024 has been challenged by the Petitioner/Accused on the ground that the Complainant is Triangles Consolidated Pvt. Ltd., while the entire trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 had not been encashed. However, in the present Complaint, it has been stated that the cheque was presented for encashment and was dishonoured. 13. It is further submitted that the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act is an abuse of process of law and that the Complaint and also the Summoning Order, be quashed against the Respondent. 14. The Petitioner has vehemently contended that the cheque amount of Rs.15 lakhs received as security deposit, had been duly returned through RTGS on 06.06.2023. Despite having received the amount, this cheque has been subsequently presented by the Respondent, which does not create any cause of action under Section 138 NI Act. It is further contended that because the RTGS payment against the cheque had al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....futile to notice here that all the entire documents, the property, the cheques, and the entire facts are pertaining to Triangles Consolidated Ltd., while the Complainant has given its nomenclature as Triangles Consolidated Pvt. Ltd., but it prima facie appears that it is referring to one and the same Company as is reflected from the subject matter of the dispute. 19. In these circumstances, when all the admitted documents are by the Triangles Logistics Ltd., it may be a misdescription in the name of the Complainant, and may not be considered as a ground to quash the Complaint at this stage, without giving an opportunity to the Complainant Respondent to explain its locus standi to file the Complaint during the trial. 20. The most signi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Respondent to the Petitioner before filing the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Rather, it is clearly mentioned in the notice that the Cheque No.000122 dated 18.05.2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which was given as a deposit, was annexed therewith. Pertinently, the cheque, which is the subject matter of the Complaint under S.138 NI Act, is the same cheque. 24. The assertion that this Cheque was towards part damages, has emerged for the first time in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act, which is belied by the Legal Notice, itself. Moreover, no such contentions of the Respondent found mention either in the Civil Suit or in the litigation before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 25. The Respondent may ha....