Delhi High Court
Bhai Manjit Singh vs Sangam India Ltd. And Anr. on 6 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 92 (2001) DLT 269
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Service been effected on the respondent. No one has cared to appear. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded with in their absence.
2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 31.8.1999 in CC No. 660/1 whereby the learned Magistrate has held that resolution, Ex. CW-1/1, is the resolution which empowers the complainant to institute criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of the resolution indicates that no such power has been given to Mr. Gupta and/or Mr. Aggarwal to institute criminal proceedings. The resolution dated 8th February, 1995 has been produced before me and reads as under:
"Resolved that Mr. M.L. Gupta and Mr. Madhusudan Aggarwal be and are hereby authorised severally or jointly to file a suit in appropriate Court having legal jurisdiction against M/s. Montari Industries Limited, 78, Nehru Place, New Delhi on behalf of the company for the realisation of the part payment on Inter Corporate Deposit of Rs. 50.00 lacs along with interest due thereupon.
Further resolved that Mr. M.L. Gupta and Mr. Madhusudan Aggarwal are further authorised severally or jointly to take all necessary actions to implement the above resolution for and on behalf of the company.
Certified to be true.
For Sangam (India) Ltd.
Sd/-
(S.N. Modani)
Managing Director."
A bare reading of the same shows that what is authorised is the filing of the suit for recovery/realisation of part payment on Inter Corporate Deposit of Rs. 50 lacs Along with interest due thereon. It does not authorise filing of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The Supreme Court in BSI Ltd. and Anr. v. Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., I (2000) CCR 226 (SC)=I (2000) BC 292 (SC), has held that mentioning of the suit in the resolution does not ipso facto mean that criminal proceedings are also covered by it. The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as under:
"19. The said contention is also devoid of merits. The word "suit" envisaged in Section 22(1) cannot be stretched to criminal prosecutions. The suit mentioned therein is restricted to "recovery of money or for enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company. As the suit is clearly delineated in the provision itself, the context would not admit of any other stretching process".
3. In this view of the matter, having gone through the resolution and heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the authorisation, Ex. CW-1/1, does not entitle the complainant to institute criminal proceedings.
I, therefore, quash complaint No. 660/1 titled 'Sangam India Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd. and Anr.'
This petition stands disposed of.
4. Petition disposed of.
