Delhi High Court
Harendra Singh Khokhar vs M/S Japna Estate Pvt. Ltd. on 5 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 05, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 646/2017, CRL.M.A. - 2777/17
VIPUL GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Mudit Jain,
Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Mr. Shailesh
Pandey, Mr. Ayush Jindal, Mr. Khurram
Salim & Ms. Shephali Ailawadi,
Advocates.
versus
M/S JAPAN ESTATE PVT LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate.
+ CRL.M.C. 1323/2017, CRL.M.A.-5339-5340/2017
HARENDRA SINGH KHOKHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal with
Mr. Mudit Jain, Ms. Barkha Rastogi,
Mr. Shailesh Pandey, Mr. Ayush Jindal,
Mr. Khurram Salim & Ms. Shephali
Ailawadi, Advocates.
versus
M/S JAPNA ESTATE PVT LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Since the above captioned petitions arise out of one complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'NI
Act'), therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, above
captioned petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order.
Impugned order of 7th December, 2015 summons petitioners as
accused in complaint under Section 138 of NI Act as they are Directors of
the accused company. Against the summoning order, petitioners had
preferred a revision petition which stands dismissed vide impugned order
of 24th January, 2017.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations against
the petitioners are contained in paragraph no. 2 of the complaint under
Section 138 of NI Act and its bare perusal reveals that the allegations
leveled against petitioners are not specific and so no case for the
summoning is made out. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's
decisions in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. Food Inspector
& Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 176; Ashoke Mal Bafna vs. Upper India Steel
Manufacturing and Engineering Company Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 202 and
Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2016 SCC
Online SC 304 in support of the above submissions.
Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the
impugned judgment and seeks to rely upon the decisions in Monaben
Ketan Shah & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (2004) 7 SCC 15;
A.K.Singhania vs. Gujarat Sate Fertilizer Co.Ltd. & Ors., (2013) 16 SCC
630; Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103;
Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SSC Online SC
304; Shashi Jindal & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,
Crl.M.C.3074/2011 (Delhi High Court); Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd.
& Ors. Vs. Destination of the World Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 119 DRJ 75 (Delhi
High Court); Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhushan & Ors., (2011)
13 SCC 88; Paresh P. Rajda vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 7 SCC 442;
SMS (I) - S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., (2005) 8
SCC 89; SMS (II) - S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr.,
(2007) 4 SCC 70; N.K.Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors., (2007) 9 SC 481
and N. Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 108.
Upon hearing and on perusal of revisional order, trial court order,
complaint in question and the decisions cited, I find that the averments
made in the complaint in question are to the effect that petitioners as
Directors were actively participating in day-to-day affairs of accused
company and were responsible for the conduct of day-to-day affairs and
were managing the accused company.
The afore-referred averments made in the complaint in question do
justify the summoning of petitioners in the complaint in question as
during the course of hearing, copy of Board Resolution dated 27 th July,
2015 of the accused company was produced before this Court and its
perusal reveals that petitioner- Harendra Singh Khokhar was designated
as authorized signatory of bank account of accused company and he was
authorized to honour the cheques etc. Revisional Court in the impugned
order had extracted paragraph 4 of the complaint in question and its
perusal reveals that petitioners were very much active in issuance of
cheques in question, thereby justifying their summoning in the complaint
in question.
In the face of the afore-referred Board Resolution of 27th July,
2015 and the averments made in paragraph 4 of the complaint in
question, I find that the decisions relied upon by petitioners' counsel are
of no avail to the case of petitioners.
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order as well as trial court
order, both these petitions are accordingly dismissed without commenting
on the merits of the case.
Both the petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2019
ak
