Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravi Raj Chawla vs Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Huf on 4 September, 2023
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~54 & 57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 & CRL.M.A. 23828/2023 (stay), CRL.M.A.
23829/2023 (exemption)
RAVI RAJ CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Advocate.
versus
KAMLESH KUMAR GUPTA HUF ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Namrata
Mukim and Ms. Ramya S. Goel,
Advocates.
+ CRL.M.C. 6378/2023 & CRL.M.A. 23877/2023 (stay), CRL.M.A.
23878/2023 (exemption)
RAVI RAJ CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Advocate.
versus
REKHA DEVI MUKIM ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Namrata
Mukim and Ms. Ramya S. Goel,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 04.09.2023 CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 & CRL.M.C. 6378/2023
1. The present petitions have been filed impugning the two orders dated 27th April, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 and connected matter Page 1 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:20:45 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in respect of two complaints filed by the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the petitioner (accused) herein.
2. As per the complaints, accused no.1 was the company, Office Beanz Private Limited, accused no.2 was a Director and an authorised signatory whereas accused no.3, the present petitioner, was the Director, co-founder, authorised signatory and CEO of the company. It has specifically been alleged in the complaints that the present petitioner as well as the accused no.2 were in charge and responsible for conduct of business of the accused no.1 company.
3. The cheques in question being dishonoured, two complaints were filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and all the accused were summoned. Subsequently, notice was framed against all the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner never challenged the summoning orders as well as the orders framing notice.
4. Thereafter, the respondents filed applications under Section 143A of the NI Act in both the complaints for seeking interim compensation. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) vide orders dated 1st March, 2021, allowed the applications under Section 143A of the NI Act in both the applications and directed the accused persons to pay 20% of the two cheque amounts to the respondents as interim compensation.
5. The petitioner filed the revision petitions against the aforesaid orders of 1st March 2021 before the Sessions Court. However, the said revision petitions were filed after one year from the date of the orders being passed.
6. The Revision Court vide order dated 27th March, 2021 dismissed the revision petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner inter alia observing that CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 and connected matter Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:20:45 the petitioner has not challenged the summoning orders. The impugned orders also take note of the averments made in the complaints with regard to the petitioner being Director, co-founder, authorised signatory and CEO of the accused company. It is further noted that the petitioner admitted that he is the Director of the accused company and did not controvert the allegation that he is the co-founder and the CEO of the accused company.
7. The relevant observations of the order passed by the Revision Court are set out below:
"13. In the present case, the revisionist is alleged to be the director, co-founder, authorized signatory and CEO of the accused company. In the defence disclosed by the revisionist while framing of notice u./s 251 Cr.P.C., the revisionist admitted that he is the director of the accused company but not the authorized signatory. He has also not controverted the allegation that he is co-founder and CEO of the accused company. The respondent has asserted in the complaint that the revisionist is responsible for the day to day affairs and responsible for conduct of the business of the company. Such averment is by itself sufficient for proceeding against the revisionist as a director of the accused company. Thus, the contention of the revisionist that he is only the director in the accused company and he has no role to play in the transactions between the respondent and the accused company or that he is not vicariously liable for the acts of the company, is found to be without any merits.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
17. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the ld. Trial Court had considered that the accused persons have not denied the signatures on the impugned cheques and therefore, the existence of liability shall be presumed till rebuttal by the accused persons during trial. The ld. Trial Court has also considered that the purpose of Section 143A NI Act is CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 and connected matter Page 3 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:20:45 to compensate the complainant during the pendency of the trial and the same would be defeated, if interim compensation would not be allowed. The ld. Trial Court also took note of the fact that the only two requirements of Section 143A NI Act are fulfilled i.e. it should be a summary/summon trial case and that accused should have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
18. In the present case, the complaint u/s. 138 NI Act has been filed by the complainant against the company, its authorized signatory and the revisionist being the director/co- founder/authorized signatory/CEO of the company, on the allegations that the impugned cheques were given towards the monthly rental of the demised premises whose physical possession was handed over to the accused persons in pursuance to the registered lease deed. The defence of the accused persons are that the impugned cheques were given as security and there is no liability as the lease was terminated due to violation of its conditions."
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not an authorized signatory and did not sign the cheques in question. He further submits that the orders passed by the learned MM is a non-speaking order.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents controverts the submission that the petitioner is not the authorised signatory.
10. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he did not sign the cheques in question, it is sufficed to mention here that in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act, the vicarious liability in respect of offences by companies is on all the persons who were in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. Therefore, the vicarious liability is made out even if the petitioner was not the authorised signatory. The fact whether the petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company is an issue which would have to be proved in trial.
CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 and connected matter Page 4 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:20:45
11. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the orders passed by the learned MM is unreasoned, I do not agree with the same. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner did not file any reply to the applications under Section 143A of the NI Act filed by the respondents, therefore, learned MM could not have considered the defence raised by the petitioner. The learned MM has duly considered the replies filed by the other accused and dealt with the defences raised therein.
12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petitions.
13. Accordingly, the present petitions along with all pending applications are dismissed.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2023 at CRL.M.C. 6361/2023 and connected matter Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:20:45