Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Ex.P9 is the reply notice dated 18.07.2007 issued by the accused to the complainant admitting that the agreement dated 11.01.2005 was entered into agreeing to purchase the shares of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited for Rs.8,38,800/- and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day and issuance of cheque bearing No.057121 for Rs.1.50,000/- and cheque No.057122 for Rs.29,200/- dated 31.03.2005. It is stated that both these amounts were paid during July 2005 and thus paid 1/3rd of the total consideration amount and calling upon the complainant to transfer 15 shares in his name. It is also mentioned that cheque bearing No.057123, 057124 and 057125 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Yellapur branch were issued with post dates. Issuance of the said cheques were not for existing liability but towards future liability, on condition that the complainant will cooperate as per the terms of the contract. It is stated that on 12.01.2005, the accused was inducted as director of the company and the same was informed and registered with registrar of companies on 28.01.2005 by the complainant but the accused was not provided with title deed and other documents to enable him to raise loan from KSFC for the purpose of purchase of machinery and equipments. When the documents were secured the same were pledged with KSFC in the month of September 2005, since there was delay of about 6 months, the accused could not start his business in time. There was delay in getting the working capital and the accused had sustained loss worth Rs.50,00,000/- and he was made to pay Rs.3,60,000/- as interest to KSFC. The accused stated that the cheques in question were issued believing and reposing faith in the complainant that he will stick and adhere to his words and commitment made in the agreement. The issuance of cheque was not unconditional but it was conditional to the performance of his part of the contract by the complainant. Therefore the accused stated that he is unable to make the payment of the said cheque. However, the accused undertaken to make payment of the balance amount to the complainant and sought for extension of time. It is stated that accused had requested not to present the cheques and offered to issue fresh cheques. The accused sought for breathing time for making payment and threatened to defend himself, if any complaint is filed.

18. Ex.P12 is the copy of the letter dated 19.05.2006 addressed by the accused as managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited to the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Hubli asking to expedite the release of the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- towards working capital at the earliest to enable him to start production in the company.

19. Ex.P13 is the copy of the letter dated 17.03.2007 issued by the accused herein as managing director to M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited addressed to the Deputy General Manager, KSFC, Dharwad replying to the notice dated 09.03.2007, informing that the bank had not released the amount in time on lame excuses and therefore there was delay in production resulting in delayed marketing. It is also informed by the accused that the KEB had disconnected the power to the factory and reducing the total workers in the factory from 10 to 4 and informing the KSFC about the steps taken to promote the marketing of the productions produced in the company.

23. Witness stated that Meharwade Associates is the chartered accountant for M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and he had availed the services of the said Meharwade Associates at the time of purchase of shares and while he becoming the director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and also at the time of pledging the assets of the company to KSFC and also at the time of availing additional loan from SBI. He admitted that he visited Meharwade Associates- Chartered Accountant and through him submitted the application along with the documents to KSFC, which are as per Exs.P7 to 11.

24. The accused admitted that KSFC after verifying Exs.P7 to 11 sanctioned the loan. However, he denied the suggestion that while availing the said loan, he was the managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited. He admitted the letters Exs.P9 and 10 written by him to KSFC. He also admitted the legal notice Ex.P4 and address mentioned in the said notice. However, the witness has given evasive answers after admitting the documents.

25. It is pertinent to note that while marking Exs.P1 to 15 or during cross examination of PW1, none of these documents were disputed by the accused. Even in the chief examination of the accused, these documents were not disputed. In his evidence during cross examination, he virtually admitted Ex.P1 to P15, even though initially he has taken his stand that his signatures were taken on blank papers by the complainant, that he has not received any legal notice and that he was not acted as managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited. He has not disputed the document Ex.P5 produced on behalf of the complainant. In the light of these oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties to the litigation, I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel representing the parties.