[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ideb Projects Pvt Ltd vs M/S Thyssen Krupp Elevator (India) on 26 February, 2026

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                         -1-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC:12000
                                                 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2020


              HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                       BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 608 OF 2020
              BETWEEN:

              1.    M/S IDEB PROJECTS PVT LTD,
                    NO.7, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
                    DELTA BLOCK, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK,
                    VARTHUR KODI, WHITEFIELD,
                    BENGALRUU - 560 066.

                    SINCE THE COMPANY IS LIQUIDATED
                    IT IS REPRESENTED BY IRP/RP.

              2.    MR. H.S. BEDI,
                    FORMER DIRECTOR OF
                    M/S IDEB PROJECECTS PVT LTD,
                    NO.7, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
Digitally
signed by           DELTA BLOCK, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK,
NANDINI M S         VARTHUR KODI, WHITE FIELD,
Location:
HIGH COURT          BENGALURU - 560 066.
OF
KARNATAKA                                                 ...PETITIONERS
              (BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              1.    M/S THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA)
                    PRIVATE LIMITED,
                    33RD CROSS ROD, 4TH BLOCK,
                    EAST JAYANAGAR,
                    BENGALURU - 560 011.
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:12000
                                    CRL.RP No. 608 of 2020


HC-KAR



    REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
    AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
    MR.LAXMIKANT.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO i) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE INCLUDING THE
PAYMENT OF FINE DATED 06.08.2020 PASSED BY THE LXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN CRL.A.NO.1031/2018 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                      ORAL ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court in this

Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the

judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed in

C.C.No.10236/2010 by the Court of XXI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City and the judgment

and order dated 06.08.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.1031/2018

by the Court of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru City.

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent Company represented by its

authorized signatory had initiated proceedings against the

petitioners herein before the Jurisdictional Court of

Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.10236/2010. It is the

case of the Complainant Company that as per the request

of the accused, Complainant Company had supplied 14

elevators to be commissioned in the housing project of

accused. The total value of the 14 elevators including

installation, commissioning and maintenance fee

amounted to Rs.1,94,60,000/-, out of the same accused

had paid totally for a sum of Rs.1,51,35,131/- for the

period from 07.12.2005 to 20.11.2008. Towards partial

payment of the balance amount, the cheque-in-question

bearing No.650053 dated 12.03.2009 drawn on ICICI

Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of

Rs.23,02,863/- was issued by the accused in favour of the

Complaint Company. As per the instructions of the

accused, the cheque-in-question was presented for

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

realisation on 03.08.2009 through the banker of the

complainant, namely ICICI Bank, CMS Branch, Bengaluru.

The said cheque was dishonored by the drawee bank with

a shara 'funds insufficient'. It is under these

circumstances, a legal notice was got issued on behalf of

the complainant to the accused which was duly served. In

spite of service of notice, the accused had not paid the

amount covered under the cheque-in-question to the

complainant and it is under these circumstances,

complainant had approached the Jurisdictional Court of

Magistrate by filing the private complaint against the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act').

4. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court has

convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and accused

No.2 who is the Managing Director of the accused No.1-

Company was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.23,10,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only) and in

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months. The said judgment and order of conviction and

sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.10236/2010

was confirmed by the Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.1031/2016 by judgment and order dated

06.08.2020. It is under these circumstances, the

petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that

the complainant has failed to honour his commitment

under Ex.P.16 and had failed to furnish a performance

bank guarantee which was required to be valid till the

warranty period. It is under these circumstances, the

accused had withheld the payment under the

cheque-in-question. He submits that accused

No.1/Company has been liquidated and therefore

prosecution as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is bad.

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent

has argued in support of the impugned judgment and

order of conviction and sentence and submits that

proceedings was initiated against accused Nos.1 and 2

prior to first accused company being liquidated. Therefore,

accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot escape from their liability. He

submits that transaction between the parties is proved and

Ex.P18 would clearly go to show that contention now

urged on behalf of the petitioners that payment under the

cheque-in-question was withheld for non-performance of

the obligation as provided under Ex.P16 is not correct.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7. In the present case, the transaction between the

parties is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that

the cheque-in-question which was signed by the

authorized representative of accused No.1-Company was

handed over to the Complainant Company. It is also not in

dispute that the said cheque was drawn on the bank

account maintained by accused No.1-Company in ICICI

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque

was dishonored when presented for realisation.

8. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the

first accused Company and therefore, he is liable to be

prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 138 of

the N.I.Act, as provided under Section 141 of the N.I.Act.

The Complainant Company has examined its authorized

representative before the Trial Court as PW.1. PW.2 is the

Bank Manager. PW.1 has reiterated the averments made

in the private complaint during the course of his deposition

Ex.P1 is the resolution of the Board of Directors of

Complainant Company and Ex.P2 is the authorization

letter of PW.1. Ex.P3 is the cheque-in-question. As stated

earlier, the issuance of the cheque-in-question to the

Complainant Company on behalf of the accused No.1-

Company is not in dispute. The said cheque was

dishonored by the drawee bank when presented for

realisation. Therefore, a presumption arises against the

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

accused as provided under Section 139 read with 118 of

the N.I.Act.

9. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended before this Court that parties had negotiated

and entered into a memorandum of settlement as per

Ex.16 dated 25.03.2008. He has submitted that

Complainant Company which had agreed to submit a

performance bank guarantee valid till the warranty period

had not submitted the performance bank guarantee and it

is under these circumstances, the amount covered under

the cheque-in-question was withheld. Ex.P18 is the

communication dated 20.07.2009 issued on behalf of the

first accused Company by its authorized signatory to the

Complainant Company. The same reads as follows:

"Sub: Payment towards supply of Elevator to our Spring Field Apartments Project.

This is in continuation to the discussion undersigned had on 17th July 2009 requesting for holding the cheque issued by our office. We request you to hold the above referred cheque till 30th July 2009 as

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

discussed and can be presented on 1st Aug 2009 and we will ensure that payment is cleared as promised."

10. A reading of the aforesaid communication which

was addressed to the complainant Company by the

accused Company would go to show that accused

company had not mentioned in the said communication

about the complainant not furnishing the performance

bank guarantee, as provided under Ex.P16 memorandum

of understanding and therefore, the payment under

cheque issued by accused No.1-Company was being

withheld and on the other hand in Ex.P18, a request is

made on behalf of accused No.1-Company, pursuant to

the discussion between the parties to withhold the cheque

for a certain period and to present the same on

01.08.2009. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.P18 that in

event the cheque is presented on 01.08.2009, it shall be

ensured that payment under the cheque-in-question would

be cleared.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

11. Material on record would go to show that the

cheque-in-question was thereafter presented by the

Complainant Company on 03.08.2009 in compliance of the

request made in Ex.P18 by the accused. Therefore, the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the payment under the cheque-in-question was withheld

for the reason that the Complainant Company had failed to

furnish the performance bank guarantee as provided under

Ex.P16 is liable to be rejected.

12. So far as the other contention urged on behalf of

the petitioners that accused No.1-Company has been now

liquidated and therefore, the Courts below were not

justified in convicting and sentencing accused Nos.1 and 2

for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is

concerned, it is trite that the managing director or the

signatory of the company which has been liquidated

subsequent to the initiation of proceedings under Section

138 of the N.I.Act cannot escape their liability. In the case

of AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKA VS.

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD -

2023 SCC ONLINE SC 266 in paragraph No.106, it is

observed as follows:

"106. Thus, the upshot of all the decisions referred to above is where the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had already commenced with the Magistrate taking cognizance upon the complaint and during the pendency, the company gets dissolved, the signatories/directors cannot escape from their penal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved, is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the NI Act."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

RAKESH BHANOT VS. GURDAS AGRO PVT. LTD - 2025

SCC ONLINE SC 728 after referring to its earlier

judgment in the case of P.MOHANRAJ AND OTHERS VS.

SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PRIVATE LTD - (2021) 6 SCC

258 in paragraph number 26 and 27 has observed as

follows:

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

"26. In Mohanraj case [P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros.

Ispat (P) Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258, the dishonoured cheques were issued by the company and hence, the complainant initiated Section 138 proceedings against the company and its Directors. The question that arose for consideration was, whether the institution or continuation of a proceeding under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act, 1881, can be said to be covered by the moratorium provision, namely, Section 14 IBC. The petitioners in the connected writ petitions therein, were the erstwhile Directors/persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor and they were all premised upon the fact that Section 138 proceedings are covered by Section 14 IBC and hence, cannot continue against the corporate debtor and consequently, against the petitioners therein.

27. This Court in Mohanraj case , after a detailed analysis of the provisions relating to moratorium under Sections 14, 96 and 101 IBC, concluded that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, and the natural persons mentioned therein, continuing to be statutorily liable under the NI Act, 1881. In doing so, it was clarified that the moratorium under IBC does not extend to criminal proceedings. Further, it was emphasised that IBC's objective is to address the corporate debtor's financial distress and should not be misconstrued as a means to avoid personal criminal accountability."

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

14. Under the circumstances, I do not find any

merit in the contention argued on behalf of petitioners

herein that the courts below were not justified in

convicting and sentencing the petitioners for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The

presumption that arose against the accused in the present

case stood un-rebutted and the accused had failed to put

forward a probable defence defece. It is under these

circumstances, the courts below have convicted the

accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act. and have sentenced accused No.2 to pay fine of

Rs.23,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ten

Thousand only). In my considered opinion, even the order

of sentence passed against the accused No.2 is just and

proportionate and the same does not call for interference.

Therefore, I do not find any good reason to entertain this

Criminal revision petition. According to the following:

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12000

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The Criminal revision petition is dismissed.

ii. The amount deposited by the petitioners before the Trial Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the Respondent complainant and at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners accused No.2 is granted time till the end of April, 2026 to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court.