Delhi District Court
Ms Technology Development Board vs Ms Virtual Logic Systems Pvt Ltd Ors on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (NI ACT-04),
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST020012682015
IN THE MATTER OF:
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016
MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs.
MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD & ORS
1. Complainant Case : CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016
Number
2. Name of the Complainant : M/s Technology Development Board,
A Body Corporate, constituted under
the Technology Development Board
Act, 1995.
Having its office at Wing-A, Ground
Floor, Vishwa Karma Bhawan,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016
Through Authorized Representative
3. Name and address of the : 1. M/s Virtual Logic Systems Pvt
accused Limited, Bangalore
Regd & Admin Office 571/1,2,3,
New No. 705, V4 Complex,
2nd Floor, East Wing,
Krishna Kamala Enclave,
Uttarahali, Bangalore-560061,
Karnataka, India
Through MD/Director/AR
2. Surya Prakash M.S,
S/o Shri Srinivasa Murthy M.S.
Director, CEO
M/s Virtual Logic Systems Pvt
Limited,
R/o Door No. 342, 16th Cross, 18th
Main, 5th Phase, J.P Nagar,
Bangalore-560078, Karnataka,
India.
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 1/15
Digitally signed
by VINOD
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27
16:12:42 +0530
3. Sudershan R,
S/o Shri Ramachandraiah,
CTO & Managing Director,
M/s Virtual Logic Systems
Pvt Limited,
R/o 153, 1st Main, Kanaka Layout,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560070, Karnataka,
India.
Offence complained : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable
4. proved Instruments Act, 1881
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : All accused persons are convicted
7. Date of Institution : 24.09.2015
8. Date on which reserved : 07.04.2025
for Judgment
9. Date of Judgement : 27.05.2025
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
ACT, 1881.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present complaint filed by complainant company i.e. M/s Technology Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') against accused no. 1 i.e. M/s Virtual Logic Systems Pvt Limited, through its MD/Director/AR i.e. accused no. 2 Surya Prakash M.S and accused no. 3 Sudershan R (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' in short).
BRIEF FACTS
2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant M/s Technology Development Board, is a body corporate, constituted by the Technology Development Board Act 1995 and is statutory body established for the purpose of development of commercialization of indigenous technology and CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 2/15 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:12:53 +0530 adaptation of imported technologies for wider domestic applications. It is alleged by the complainant that on 26.07.2012, the accused No.3 as CTO and Managing Director with accused No.2 Director/CEO of accused No.1 entered into a loan agreement with the Complainant to avail loan assistance of Rs.250 lacs from the Complainant for setting up the project titled "Development and commercialization of Virtual Reality based skills training STIMULATOR (COMET SIMULATOR), aimed at the skill development of maintenance technicians across industries" and accused no. 2 & 3 as Managing Director/ Director and authorized signatory of accused no.1 executed the loan agreement and signed the same as borrower cum personal guarantor. It is alleged by the complainant that the consolidated dues as detailed in the Agreement mentioned above were agreed to be paid by the accused persons to the Complainant in installments, in the manner and on the dates set out in detail in the repayment schedule annexed with the loan Agreement as Schedule-II and the interest on consolidated dues was payable in the manner as mentioned in schedule II of the Agreement dated 26.07.2012 as the Schedule-II was also executed and signed by the accused persons. It is further alleged that under the terms and conditions of Schedule-
II of the Schedule of repayment of the Agreement dated 26.07.2012, an interest installment of Rs.36,02,544/- was to be paid in the interest account on 01.04.2015 and the accused Nos.2 & 3 issued a cheque on behalf of accused No.1 bearing No. 556328 dated 01.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 36,02,544/- in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheque in question") and when the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for presentation, the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 03.07.2015. It is further stated that thereafter, within the stipulated time, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 28.07.2015 calling upon the accused persons to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs.36,02,544/-, but despite service of legal demand notice to the accused person(s), they have not made any payment to the Complainant till date against the said liability. CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 3/15 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:13:01 +0530 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. The cognizance of the complaint was taken and prima facie the offence u/s 138 NI Act was made out against accused persons who were summoned vide order dated 20.05.2016. The notice u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused person(s) on 11.01.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, an oral application of accused persons u/s. 145(2) of NI Act was allowed and the complainant was examined, cross- examined and discharged. Statement of accused person(s) u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on 17.05.2024 and 03.07.2024 in which the accused person(s) chose to lead defence evidence, however, later the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence and subsequently, defence evidence was closed on 14.08.2024 and the matter was listed for final arguments. After this, final arguments were advanced by the parties and written arguments were also filed.
EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant had examined himself as CW-1 by way of affidavit and relied upon the following documents:
Ex.CW-1/1 Letter of Authority in favour of Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, the then AR for the complainant.
Ex.CW-1/1A Authority letter dated 27.01.2021 in favour of Ms. Satamita Ghosh, AR for the complainant.
Ex.CW-1/2 Copy of loan agreement dated 26.07.2015. Ex.CW-1/3 Cheque bearing no. 556328 dated 01.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 36,02,544/-.
Ex.CW-1/4 Return Memo dated 03.07.2015.
Ex.CW-1/5 Legal demand notice dated 28.07.2015.
Ex.CW-1/6 Postal receipts.
(Colly)
Ex.CW-1/7 AD cards/ acknowledgement slips from the
(Colly) Department of Posts, Govt of India.
Ex.CW-1/8 Return envelope of accused no. 3.
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 4/15
Digitally signed
by VINOD
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27
16:13:06 +0530
Ex.CW-1/9 and Reply of legal demand notice dated 10.08.2015 Ex.CW-1/10 alongwith its envelope.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused persons have admitted at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.PC that the they availed loan facility from the complainant, signing of loan agreement with full knowledge of all contents and Schedules, signing the cheques in favour of the complainant for discharge of their lawful liability as stated in loan agreement. It is argued that though accused persons have not specifically admitted of having received the legal notice of demand, however, the receipt of the same is deemed to be admitted in view of the fact that a reply to such notice which is already Ex.CW-1/9 has been sent by the accused persons and they had raised the defence in response to the present complaint that they have given the cheque without knowledge of the purpose of the same and only with a view of early facilitation and disbursal of loan by the Complainant; the loan facility had been restructured by the complainant vide letter dated 07.10.2015 Ex.CW-1/D1, hence there was no liability for which the Cheque was issued and the said document was confronted to the Complainant's witness during cross examination dated 02.02.2024.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that accused did not lead any evidence to prove the above stated defences and the defences as taken by the accused persons are false and sham. Further, in the statement under Section 251 Cr. P.C and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons have admitted to have applied for the loan and having been selected from various other applicants, therefore, the accused persons proved to be educated and meritorious persons having full knowledge of market and industry. Further, the accused persons with above stated background have agreed to have signed the Loan Agreement with full CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 5/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.27 16:13:13 +0530 knowledge of all contents and voluntarily issued the Cheque in question and the defence that the cheques were given only as a security, goes to shows the intention of the accused persons, to not honor the same.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the submissions of the accused that the loan was restricted by the complainant vide letter dated 07.10.2015 (Ex.CW1/D1), is incorrect rather the said letter showed that the complainant had in acknowledgment of the requests of the accused persons agreed to restructure some payment of the loan and called upon the accused to give the payment plan for the same, however, the accused never honored the said re-structured payment plan and did not responded to complainant on the same and the said letter was never acted upon by parties, therefore, the said letter can be termed as an Offer, which was never accepted by the accused persons and as such it does not have any legal effect. Further, it is stated that the letter dated 07.10.2015 Ex.CW-1/D1 is later to the date of issuance of Cheque no. 556328 dated 01.04.2015 Ex.CW-1/3 (i.e. cheque in question) and the same was returned vide return memo dated 03.07.2015 Ex.CW-1/4.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record relevant Judgments i.e. "Sumeti Vij vs. M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries "
AIR2021SC1281 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, "Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Another ", "Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar", "Kalamani Tex vs. P. Balasubramanian", " Anss Rajashekar vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth", "Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan". Ld. Counsel for complainant prays that the accused persons be convicte for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the complainant had procured the cheque in question at the time of the execution of the agreement dated 26.07.2012 as security as it was the part of the loan disbursement, the said fact has not been mentioned by the complainant in his complainant nor has it been disclosed in the affidavit of CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 6/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.27 16:13:24 +0530 evidence. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that as per Schedule- II of the repayment schedule annexed to loan agreement dated 26.07.2012, the amount due as interest was Rs.4,84,818/- and not Rs. 36,02,544/- as alleged by complainant. It is stated that during cross examination dated 02.02.2024, CW-1 stated that she is not aware whether the cheque mentioned in the complaint i.e. CT Case No. 465481/2016 & 472760/2016 was presented to the Bank for encashment within the prescribed limitation period of three months. Further, during the cross examination conducted on 02.02.2024, CW-1 stated that it is wrong to suggest that an accumulated interest amounting to Rs.36,02,544/- was not due against the accused persons, however, Schedule-II of the Agreement dated 26.07.2012 explicitly states that the amount due as interest was only Rs. 4,84,818/-.
10. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that Clause 1.4 of the Agreement dated 26.07.2012 provides that the complainant/Board may, at the request of the accused persons/Borrower, in suitable circumstances and at its absolute discretion, further revise, vary, or postpone the repayment of the principal amount of the loan assistance, the interest accrued thereon, or the outstanding balance for the time being and the Board may also reschedule any installment of the principal amount or any part thereof, along with the interest accrued, subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem fit, the Board/ complainant has discretion to change the repayment plan of the accused persons. It is stated that vide letter bearing No.TDB/F-7/201I-12 dated 07.10.2015, issued by the complainant (Ex.CW-1/D1), the complainant has already re-scheduled the repayment plan of the accused persons and the witness/AR for the complainant i.e. CW-1 has already admitted that Ex.CW-1/D1 was indeed issued by the complainant and document exhibited as Ex.CW-1/D2 i.e. statement of accounts of accused No.1 in the records of the complainant, which was prepared by the complainant, is not authentic and cannot be relied upon as the person who prepared Ex.CW-1/D2 never stepped into the witness box to provide testimony regarding its preparation or authenticity. It is stated CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 7/15 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:13:29 +0530 that Ex.CW-1/D3 alleged to be a ledger of loans pertaining to accused persons, does not support the case of the complainant and there are no debit or credit entries recorded in the name of accused No. 1 in the ledger, which raises serious doubts about the veracity of the averments of the complainant and the narration of the entry states that the amount was paid to Accused No. 1, there is no documentary evidence or supporting material to substantiate this assertion. It is stated that absence of such evidence further undermines the case of the complainant and renders Ex.CW-1/D3 unreliable and inadmissible as evidence in this matter.
11. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that in the present case, the amount of the cheque is significantly higher than the interest amount due from the accused as of 01.04.2015. Further vide letter bearing No. TDB/F-7120HI-12 dated 07.10.2015, issued by the complainant (Ex. CW-1/D1), the complainant re-scheduled the repayment plan of the accused, as such, there was no outstanding liability of the accused towards the complainant on the date when the cheque in question was presented. It is stated that once the repayment plan was re-scheduled by the complainant, as evidenced by the letter bearing No. TDB/F-7120II-12 dated 07.10.2015 Ex. CW-1/D1, the original liability, for which the cheque was issued, ceased to exist, the cheque in question, which was issued by the accused towards the old liability, no longer has any legal substance or validity, as the repayment terms were revised and the liability was adjusted accordingly, the alteration of the repayment plan effectively superseded the original terms, rendering the cheque issued for the previous liability irrelevant and unenforceable. Further, when an agreement is modified or novated, the original terms of the agreement and liabilities under it cease to have effect, unless expressly stated otherwise in the modification agreement. It is stated that the modification of terms alters the nature of the liability, and any instruments given in respect of the old terms would not be enforceable if the debt has been discharged or restructured under the new terms.
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 8/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:13:35 +0530
12. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench vide order dated 24.08.2020, passed in C.P. (IB) No. 126/BB/ 2017, in the matter of Mr. Venkata Subbarao Kalva and M/s. K.S. Hiremath, permitted to the applicant to assign rights over the Unsold Intangible Assets-Intellectual Property available with the Corporate Debtor, Virtual Logic Systems Private Limited i.e. Accused No.1 to Technology Development Board, Secured Financial Creditor, i.e. the Complainant, towards their liability, immediately after receipt of a copy of the order dated 24.08.2020 and the copy of said order is already placed on record. Further, the accused have no legal liability towards the complainant in respect to the cheque in question and the complainant has misused the cheque of the accused person. It is stated that complainant has failed to establish the necessary legal requirements to sustain a claim under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
13. It is pertinent to mention that to establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following ingredients reiterated in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kusum Ingots and Alloys v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR 2000 SC954:-
(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;
(ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 9/15 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:13:45 +0530 account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;
14. It is pertinent to mention here that a negotiable instrument including a cheque carries presumption of consideration in terms of Section 118(a) and under Section 139 of the Act.
Section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:-
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability."
15. The combined effect of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of NI Act is that it raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in In Jugesh Sehgal vs. CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 10/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.27 16:13:52 +0530 Shamsher Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683 as under:
"14. Before moving forward with the contentions of the accused, it is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 118(a) and Devender Singh Vs. Deepak Madan 139 of the NI Act, in every case u/s. 138 of NI Act, there is a presumption of law that the cheque has been issued for consideration and in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.
15. It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has been held that the presumption u/s. 139 NI Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption u/s. 118 r/w. 139 NI Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability."
16. In the present matter, the accused persons vide notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. has admitted their liability to pay loan amount to the complainant and also admitted that the said cheque in question was given as a postdated cheque by way of security. Therefore, as per the scheme of the NI Act, the CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 11/15 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27 16:14:05 +0530 presumptions under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 NI Act are raised in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused persons to the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and these being the rebuttable presumptions, a reverse onus is now cast on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Now, the defense taken by the accused to rebut the presumptions available in the favor of the complainant will be looked into and decided upon.
17. First defence raised by the accused persons is that the cheques in question was procured by the complainant by way of security at the time of execution of loan agreement dated 26.07.2012 and the said cheque was not issued to discharge any legally enforceable debt/liability. In the facts and circumstances of the case, reliance can be placed on judgment pronounced in ICDS Vs Beena Shabir & Anr (2002) 6 SCC-426 where it was held that "Security cheques would also fall within the purview of the Section 138 NI Act and a person cannot escape his liability unless he proves that debt or liability for which cheuqe was issued as security is satisfied otherwise". Reliance can also be placed on judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Sripati Singh Vs State of Jharkhand 2021 SCC online SC 1002 wherein it was held that "A cheque issued as security, pursuant to a financial transaction, cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper. It is given to ensure the fulfilment of an obligation undertaken. The Court explained that if a cheque is issued to secure repayment of a loan advanced and if the loan is not repaid on or before the due date, the drawee would be entitled to present the cheque for payment, and if such a cheque is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 NI Act would follow".
18. The second defence raised by the accused persons is that vide letter dated 07.10.2015 (Ex.CW-1/D-1) issued by the complainant, the complainant has rescheduled the repayment plan for the accused persons CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 12/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR 2025.05.27 Date:
16:14:10 +0530 and as such there was no outstanding liability of the accused persons towards the complainant on the date when the cheque in question was presented as the original liability for which the said cheque was issued, ceased to exist as the alteration of the repayment plan superseded the original terms. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the aforesaid letter is an admitted document by the accused and has been produced on behalf of the accused during cross examination of the AR for the complainant. Perusal of aforesaid letter further show that the said letter was issued at the insistence of the accused vide their communication dated 09.09.2015 which itself mean that the accused persons had admitted their liability as on the date of the said letter. Moreover, vide said letter, only fresh repayment schedule was asked from the accused persons and it was requested to the accused person to intimate the repayment schedule to the complainant, however, perusal of records show that no such further intimation in this regard was received from the accused persons and as such the original terms of the repayment subsisted at the time of presentation of the said cheques.
19. The third defence raised by the accused persons is that the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench vide order dated 24.08.2020 passed in C.P. (IB) NO.126/BB/2017 in the matter of Mr. Venkata Subbarao Kalva and M/s. K.S. Hiremath permitted the applicant to assign rights over the unsold intangible assets intellectual property available to the the corporate debtor i.e. accused No.1 to the complainant towards their liability. Perusal of records show that the said letter was produced at the time of final arguments and not placed on record at the time of examination of parties so as to be able to give an opportunity to the complainant to discredit the version of the accused persons. Moreover, the proceedings before the Ld. NCLT are different in nature than those under the purview of this Act. In view of the same, this Court does not deem it fit to evaluate the merits of the said letter so as to have any bearing on the consequences of the instant case.
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 13/15 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.27 16:14:16 +0530
20. The fourth and the most important defence raised by the accused persons is that as per Schedule-II of the repayment schedule appended to the loan agreement dated 26.07.2012, the amount due as an interest on the relevant date was Rs.4,84,818/- and not Rs.36,02,544/- as claimed by the complainant. Perusal of records who that it is the case of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused persons with regard to the payment of interest installment in discharge of their legal liability towards the interest account as on 01.04.2015. Perusal of records show as per the Schedule-II of the repayment schedule appended to the loan agreement dated 26.07.2012, the accumulated amount to be payable in the interest account at the relevant date i.e. 01.04.2015, is Rs.36,02,544/- i.e. the amount for which the alleged cheque is question is alleged to have been issued. Moreover, the accused in cross examination of AR for the complainant dated 20.12.2023 has himself put suggestion to the accused stating that as on 01.04.2015, an amount of Rs.36,02,544/- was due against he accused, which tantamounts to an implied admission of liability on the part of the accused. Several documentary evidences have been placed on record such as statement of accounts of the complainant, Loan ledger accounts of the complainant and Schedule II of the repayment schedule appended to the loan agreement dated 26.07.2012 to show the existing liability of the accused as on relevant date, however, the defence of the accused that only an amount of Rs. 4,84,818/- was due against the accused as on relevant date, is not supported by any evidence to this effect lead by the accused. The onus to prove the same lies on the accused by operation of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which states that person who asserts a fact must prove the same unless the law otherwise provides. Perusal of records show that no cogent material has been placed on record by the accused to prove that the amount due against the accused as on relevant date was Rs. 4,84,818/-. In fact, the accused has himself admitted the factum of execution of loan agreement dated 26.07.2012 and thereby admitted Schedule-II which is an integral part of the that agreement. CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 14/15 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.27 16:14:25 +0530 Moreover, the accused has duly placed on record Ex.CW-1/D2 i.e. the statement of accounts of the complainant company as on 10.01.2024 wehrein it is reflected that the amount of accumulated interest at the relevant date is Rs.79,72,823/- which is still more than the amount of the cheque in question.
FINAL ORDER
21. Therefore, considering the weight of the attending circumstances viz, the consistency in the complainant story, and the failure of the accused persons to put forth any reasonable and believable defence and fact that the accused persons have not proved their defence to cause the probabilities to lie in their favour, an element of section 138 NI Act stands assembled.
22. The complainant has with the aid of evidence led a presumption of legal liability under Section 118 read with Section 139 of N. I. Act and has successfully proved the basic ingredients of offence under section 138 N. I Act.
23. Resultantly, the accused persons stand convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Let the convicts be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
24. Let a signed copy of the Judgment be supplied to the accused persons, free of cost, and a copy of the same be placed on record.
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.27
16:14:35 +0530
Pronounced in open Court on 27th (Vinod Kumar)
day of May, 2025 JMFC (NI Act)-04/Saket Courts,
South/New Delhi
CT Cases 1185/2015 465487/2016 MS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. MS VIRTUAL LOGIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD ORS PAGE NO. 15/15