Chattisgarh High Court
Lokesh Agrawal vs Santosh Sharma on 24 June, 2025
1/3 Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.24
17:39:45
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1672 of 2025
Lokesh Agrawal S/o Shri Puranlal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Near
Swaminarayan Temple Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Santosh Sharma S/o Shri Bajranglal Sharma Aged About 37 Years
Tilda Neora Post Tilda Neora, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Ravi Kumavat S/o Late Shankar Lal Kumavat R/o Dakwaloka Mohalla,
Ringas, District - Sikar, Rajasthan
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
24/06/2025 Mr. Om Kukreja, counsel for petitioner.
Ms. Sweksha Sharma, for respondent No.1.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 for grant of stay.
Respondent No.1/Complainant Santosh Sharma
lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against Geofuels International partners
Lokesh Agarwal and Ravi Kumawat, in which cheque No.
000060 dated 26/07/2021 for the amount of Rs 30,00,000/-
signed by the partner of Geofuels International is disputed
which was dishonoured. Petitioner Lokesh Agarwal and
respondent No.2 Ravi Kumawat are partners of the said
company whose cheque was dishonoured.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argues
that no legal notice was given to the company regarding
dishonour of the cheque. Petitioner and Ravi Kumawat (R-
2) were also not given legal notice as partners of the
partnership firm whereas the complaint has been made in
the name of the company and there is lack of legal notice in
the name of the company. Hence, the complaint on which
hearing is going on in the trial Court is not maintainable.
Therefore, that trial should be stayed. In support of his
argument, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the case
of Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and another (2019) 3
SCC 797, in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that if the dishonoured cheque has been issued by
the Director of the company on behalf of the company and
the company has not been made a party, the complaint
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not
maintainable.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant
argues that legal notices have been served on the partners
of the company who have been working on behalf of the
company. They were aware of everything as
representatives of the company and in the complaint case,
not only the two partners but also the company has been
included as accused. In such a situation, the argument of
the petitioner is not acceptable and the petitioner would not
get the benefit of the judgment of Himanshu (Supra) due to
the difference in facts. Referring to the case of Himanshu
(Supra), learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.
Kesava v. M. K. Veerendra Babu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
3463 where in paragraph 28 it has been observed as
under:-
"28. The High Court rightly found the Managing
Director is a person entrusted with substantial
power of management of the affairs of the
Company. Notice on Managing Director would
imply that the company was made aware of the
dishonour of the cheque and of the demand of
the payment of dishonour of cheque as
contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act."
In the case before this Court, legal notice has been
given by complainant/respondent No.1 Santosh Sharma to
Lokesh Agarwal, the partner of Geofuels International and
in the complaint filed under section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, Geofuels International partner Lokesh
Agarwal and Ravi Kumawat have been made parties as
accused. In the above situation, in the light of the said
judgments, this Court finds that it would not be appropriate
to stay the trial going on before the trial Court.
Thus, without commenting anything on merits of
the case, IA No.01/2025 is rejected.
Sd/-
Khatai
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
