Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The present complaint is filed under Sec.200 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 r/w Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused is partnership firm which was appointed as wholesaler of products of the complainant company under Distributor Agreement dated 2.4.2013 entered into between the accused and complainant. In pursuance of said agreement, complainant has supplied products to the accused and raised 14 invoices totally worth Rs.35,02,025.07. In acknowledgement of said liability to clear invoice amounts, accused issued a mandate to its banker namely Allahabad Bank for processing the payment request raised by complainant vide National Automated Clearance House (NACH) dated 15.3.2016. Accordingly complainant deposited the following payment requests vide NACH through its bank namely HDFC Bank, Richmond Road, Bengaluru.

Sl.No. Instrument Number Date deposited Amount (Rs.) 1 NC0000000550471 30.10.2017 2,18,959.61 2 NC0000000553455 30.10.2017 1,41,112.77 (not claimed under this complaint) 3 NC0000000566301 30.10.2017 3,13,633.24 4 NC0000000566017 30.10.2017 1,47,231.00 5 NC0000000566024 30.10.2017 1,16,840.41 6 NC0000000567367 31.10.2017 3,09,039.40 7 NC0000000567369 31.10.2017 1,99,308.29 8 NC0000000567370 31.10.2017 1,36,160.98 9 NC0000000568516 31.10.2017 3,84,919.60 10 NC0000000568534 31.10.2017 2,13,695.61 11 NC0000000568536 31.10.2017 96,126.25 12 NC0000000570294 03.11.2017 2,88,436.79 13 NC0000000570296 03.11.2017 4,11,134.93 14 NC0000000572026 03.11.2017 3,43,300.46 15 NC0000000572042 03.11.2017 3,23,238.50 TOTAL 35,02,025.07 It is further claimed that above said payment requests have been dishonored for the reason "balance insufficient" as per banker's return statement dtd.7.11.2017. When the complainant got issued legal notice dtd.17.11.2017 to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the amounts covered under NACH mandate, said notice which was sent by registered post as well as through professional courier was served on the accused on 24.11.2017. After issuance of legal notice, complainant reconciled its accounts of the accused before filing the complaint and it was found that goods pertaining to GST Invoice No.DE0113007089 DTD.14.10.2017 worth Rs.1,41,112.77 were returned and as such complainant does not claim the amount pertaining to said invoice in the present complaint. The accused got issued untenable reply notice dtd.8.12.2017 but failed to pay the amount covered under NACH payment mandate. Hence, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 r/w Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence this complaint.

10. As regard to limitation to file this complaint, it is clear from Ex.P4 to P12 that when the complainant bank deposited NACH mandate payment requests vide NACH through its banker namely HDFC Bank, Richmond Road, Bengaluru as per NACH mandate dtd.15.3.2016 issued by the accused to its banker namely Allahabad Bank, said payment requests came to be dishonored on 7.11.2017 for the reason "balance insufficient" and that when the complainant got issued statutory notice under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 r/w Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the accused by registered post as well as through professional courier (within 30 days from the date of receipt of information of such dishonour), calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under NACH mandate within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice, said notice came to be served on the accused on 24.11.2017 and got replied by the accused. Hence the present complaint which is filed after expiry of 15 days from the date of service of said notice and within one month thereafter is in time.

14. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant company and accused have entered into Ex.P2- Distributor Agreement dtd.2.4.2013 under which accused became distributor of products of the complainant company. It is further case of the complainant that accused issued NACH mandate in favour of the complainant company to its banker i.e., Allahabad Bank on 15.3.2016. It is further case of the complainant that complainant company supplied products to the accused under 14 invoices worth Rs.35,02,025.07 as per Ex.P3-invoice. It is further case of the complainant that when the complainant deposited payment requests vide NACH mandate through its banker, said payment requests came to be dishonored. On the other hand, though accused has admitted that he is distributor of the complainant company under Ex.P2-Distributor Agreement and that accused issued NACH mandate dtd.15.3.2016 in favour of the complainant bank, it is specific defence of the accused that the complainant company has not supplied goods to the accused as specified in Ex.P3-invoice. It is specific defence of the accused that one Amit Khanna - Sales Manager and Sanjeev Goswamy- Representative of the complainant company were co-ordinating with accused regarding the business transaction. There was misunderstanding between above said persons and accused regarding business transaction, said Amit Khanna and Sanjeev Goswamy created Ex.P3 - invoices though no products have been supplied to the accused as per said invoices and accused is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in NACH mandate payment requests and present false complaint is filed against the accused to harass the accused.