Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul vs Kaveri Plastics on 11 May, 2022

Author: Jasmeet Singh

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

                          $~36
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CRL.M.C. 2164/2022
                                 MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL ..... Petitioner
                                            Through: Mr Siddharth Khattar, Mr Akash Jain
                                                     and Mr Divij Andley, Advs.

                                                    versus

                                 KAVERI PLASTICS                                      ..... Respondent
                                              Through:

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                              ORDER

% 11.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 9154/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

This is a petition seeking quashing of Complaint Bearing CC No. 523804/2016, titled „Kaveri Plastics v. Naftogaz India Private Limited & Ors.‟ under Sections 138/141/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of learned MM-04 (N.I. Act), Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi along with summoning order dated 04.09.2012 and order dated 06.10.2021 where the application seeking discharge was dismissed in the aforesaid complaint.

The case of the petitioner is that the complaint of the respondent is predicated on bouncing of cheque bearing No. 876229 dated 30.04.2012, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:11.05.2022 19:30:11 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank for a sum of Rs. 1 crore. The said cheque was returned dishonoured vide memo dated 12.05.2012 for reasons "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". On bouncing of the cheque, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 08.06.2012 wherein paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and the concluding paragraph read as under:

"4. That in pursuance of the MoU, in terms of part liability towards my clients, you the noticees issued the following cheque;

                                Cheque No.    Date      Bank & Branch         Amount
                                876229     30.04.2012   Indian Overseas Bank,  Rs. 1 Crore
                                                             B/o. R.K. Puram (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-)

5. That you the notices assured my client that the aforesaid cheques shall be honored on presentation.

6. That believing your assurance, my client presented these cheques to his banker, but was astonished to see the fate of the cheques as the same returned dishonored vide memos dated 12.05.2012 for reasons "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT".

7....

8....

I, hereby call upon you to make the payments of the aforesaid cheques of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this legal notice failing which I have definite instructions from my client to initiate legal proceedings, against you which please note shall solely be at your risk and cost. Copy kept." Relying upon the said legal notice, the petitioner filed an application seeking discharge. In response to the said application, the respondent filed a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:11.05.2022 19:30:11 reply and para 2 of the reply reads as under:

"2. That the notice dated 08.06.2012 is perfect and if contents of the entire notice be read as whole the said demands, the "aforesaid cheque" and the aforesaid cheque has been clearly described in para 4 of the notice, however, due to typographical inadvertent mistake Rs.2,00,00,000/- has been mention after the word "aforesaid cheque". ·It is very relevant to mention herein that complainant has also issued other notices to the accused on the same day which consist the cheque for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and due to cut paste command inadvertently amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- could not change in the notice issued in the present case. It is very relevant to mention herein that contents of entire notice clearly speaks real facts and all the contents of the notice must be read in totality."

It is submitted by Mr Khattar that the notice is faulty as the phraseology of Section 138 proviso (b) of the N.I. Act has not been met by the respondent.

The phraseology "the said amount of money" has been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 2 crores in place of Rs. 1 crore. Mr Khattar has further relied on Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 321 as well as M/s. Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Vinay Mittal, (2010) 115 DRJ 241 to support his submissions.

Issue notice to the respondent through all modes including electronically, returnable on 25.08.2022.

This is an application seeking stay of proceedings in Complaint Bearing CC No. 523804/2016 pending in the Court of learned MM -04 (N.I. Act), Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi during the pendency of the present petition.

Issue notice to the respondent through all modes including electronically, returnable on 25.08.2022.

For the reasons stated above, the proceedings in Complaint Bearing CC No. 523804/2016 pending in the Court of learned MM -04 (N.I. Act), Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi is stayed till the next date of hearing.

                                                                                  JASMEET SINGH, J
                          MAY 11, 2022
                          sr                               Click here to check corrigendum, if any




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:11.05.2022
19:30:11