Madras High Court
M/S.Saalim Shoes (P) Ltd vs M/S.United Enterprises on 11 July, 2022
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8939 & 8942 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
3.Arcot Mohammed Aslam
4.Arcot Mohammed Ashfaque ..
Petitioners
Versus
M/s.United Enterprises
Represented by its
Managing Partner Mr.N.Srinivasan
No.15/3, Bharathi Nagar, Ranipet
Ranipet District – 632 403 .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the entire records in pursuant to the S.T.C.No.52 of 2021 pending on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022
file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint in S.T.C.No.52 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet District, for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The present petition has been filed to quash the cheque complaint in S.T.C.No.52 of 2021 mainly on the ground that the management of the first petitioner company was taken over by the Corporate 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 myself to the submission of the learned counsel. The 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022 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 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 under sections 138 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no proceedings can continued 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 corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continue to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. In such a view of the matter, the petitioners 2 to 4 being the directors of the first petitioner company, have to be prosecuted as per the above judgment.
5. In such view of the matter, the complaint as against the the first petitioner company alone is quashed. In respect of others, the application to quash is dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners citing the age of the second petitioner seeks dispensing of personal appearance before the Trial Court. Considering the same, personal appearance of the second petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except when called for in required circumstances, the second petitioner shall be present on the date as fixed the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court shall proceed as against other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022 accused and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order vrc To
1.Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet District
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.15855 of 2022 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc CRL.O.P.No.15855 of 2022 11.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 6