Madras High Court
M/S.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd vs M/S.Vasavi Marketing on 4 March, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
Crl.O.P.No.13655 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.13655 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.7306 & 7307 of 2022
1.M/s.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Arcot Mohammed Saalim
No.1-A, Regency Apartment, No.5, 1st Lane,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034
Factory at No.63/1, 63/2
Ammor Road, Manthangal,
Ranipet, Ranipet District- 632 403
Tamil Nadu
2.Arcot Mohammed Saalim,
Managing Director, M/s.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd,
No.1-A Regency Apartment,No.5, 1st Lane,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.
3.Arcot Mohammed Aslam
Director, M/s.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd,
No.1-A Regency Apartment,No.5, 1st Lane,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.
4.Arcot Mohammed Ashfaque .. Petitioners
Director, M/s.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd,
No.1-A Regency Apartment,No.5, 1st Lane,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. ...Petitioners
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13655 of 2022
Vs.
M/s.Vasavi Marketing
Represented by its Power Agent
Mr.R.Nagendra Prasad
Head Office at No.88/A, Vakkil Street
Ranipet, Walaja Taluk
Ranipet District ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the entire records in pursuant to the S.T.C.No.53 of 2021 pending
on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet District and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
Chargesheet in S.T.C.No.53 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ranipet District, for the offence under Section 138
read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
2. The present petition has been filed to quash the cheque
complaint in S.T.C.No.53 of 2021 mainly on the ground that the
management of the petitioner company was taken over by the Corporate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Debtor appointed by National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench –
I, Chennai and there was a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Therefore, it is submitted that no
complaint is maintainable as against the petitioner company and its
Directors.
3. At the outset, I am unable to persuade to the submission of the
learned counsel. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohanraj and
Others vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2021 SCC Online
SC 152], after dealing with various judgements of the Apex Court in
paragraph 103 held as follows:
“103. Since the Corporate debtor would be covered
by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14
of the IBC, by which continuation of Section
138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor
and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings
against the said debtor during the corporate
insolvency resolution process are interdicted, what is
stated in paragraphs 51 and 59 in Aneeta Hada
(supra) would then become applicable. The legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impediment contained in Section 14 of the IBC
would make it impossible for such proceeding to
continue or be instituted against the corporate debtor.
Thus, for the period of moratorium, since no Section
138/141 proceeding can continue or be initiated
against the corporate debtor because of a statutory
bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued
against the persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and
(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This being the
case, it is clear that the moratorium provision
contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only
to the corporate debtor, the natural persons
mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily
liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.''
As the moratorium applies to the Corporate Debtor, no
proceedings under 138/141 can continue or be initiated because of a
statutory bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued against the
persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and (2) of the Negotiable
Instrument Act. This being the case, it is clear that the moratorium
provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141
continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
4. In such a view of the matter, the petitioners being the directors
of the company, have to be prosecuted as per the above judgment.
5.Accordingly, the complaint as against the the petitioner company
alone is quashed. In respect of others, the application to quash is
dismissed and at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners citing
the age of the petitioner namely Mr.Arcot Mohammed Saalim seeks
exemption of personal appearance before the Trial Court. Considering
the same, personal appearance of the above mentioned petitioners before
the Trial Court is dispensed with, except when called for in required
circumstances, the afore mentioned petitioners shall be present on the
date as fixed by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court shall proceed
as against the other accused and dispose of the same in accordance with
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.,
msrm
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petitions
stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
04.03.2024
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
msrm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
and Crl.M.P.Nos.7306 & 7307 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
