Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sd.
(M.L.BHARGAVA) CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER"

2. I will first take up the case of Crl. Rev. 602/2000 in which the complainant is M/s DCM Shriram Leasing and Finance Ltd. M/s Vinayak Industries Ltd. approached the complainant for the purpose of taking on lease certain equipments known as shoe lasts required for manufacturing shoes of value of Rs. 22,16,250.00. A leasing agreement was entered into between the company and the complainant on 14.3.95 and the complainant financed the accused No.1 M/s Vinayak Industries with Rs. 20 lakhs for the same equipment. The repayment was to be made in 36 monthly Installments of Rs. 78,577/-, the accused No.2 namely Rajesh Jain, i.e. the petitioner No.1 being duly authorised executed a Demand Promissory Note for a sum of Rs. 27,20,000/- which included the interest on the loan. He also executed a personal guarantee for that amount. The accused company paid the first few Installments but subsequently three cheques bearing No. 549480 dated 15.7.96, 549481 dated 15.8.96, 549483 dated 15.10.96 issued towards the monthly Installments falling due on 15.7.96, 15.8.96 and 15.10.96 issued by the accused No.2/petitioner No.1 for and on behalf of the accused No.1 were dishonoured with the remarks "Funds insufficeint" Vide returning memo dated 3.1.97. The complainant M/s DCM Shriram Leasing & Finance company after going through the procedure of issuing notice for payment of the cheques filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act seeking prosecution, compensation and punishment. A notice u/s 251 was framed by the learned MM against accused No.1 Vinayak Industries Ltd., accused No.2 Rajesh Jain Chairman of the Vinayak Industries Ltd. and accused No.3 Rajan Bhardwaj the Managing Director of the company. Before the learned ASJ, who heard the revision. The petitioners took the plea that on account of the order dated 13th February, 1996 u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 which was passed prior to the dates of the aforesaid three cheques, the petitioners had ceased to be the persons responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and therefore not liable to be tried for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 259/2004, the petitioner is the same namely Rajesh Jain of M/s Vinayak Industries Ltd. the respondent in this case is Modi Corp. Ltd. who filed the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the complainant had provided lease of equipment known as PVC Cast Mould (FARMA) against an agreement dated 1st March, 1994 under which the accused namely Vinayak Industries Ltd. and its Directors had to pay 12 quarterly Installments towards the lease money and that in accordance with the sale agreement, the accused issued cheques but the 7th of these cheques and the subsequent ones were dishonoured. The complaint in question related to two cheques dated 30th December 1995 and 30th March 1996. Both of these cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner being the Chairman of the company took the same pleas as taken in the case of Criminal Revision Petition No. 602/2000 M/s DCM Shriman Leasing Finance Ltd.

4. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 883/2002 are on similar facts where respondents are Essar Universal Pvt. Ltd. had a leasing agreement and as per the terms of this agreement Vinayak Industries Ltd. had issued cheques which were eventually dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The cheques in question were dated 24.12.97 favoring Essar Electrical Control (P) Ltd. for Rs. 1,12,840 and another dated 24.12.97 favoring Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Ltd. for Rs. 2,16,478/-.

5. The fourth case i.e. Criminal Revision Petition No. 604/2000 is also by M/s DCM Shrimam Leasing and Finance Ltd. and to relate two cheques dated 15.11.96 and 15.12.96 each for the sum of Rs. 78,577/- drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel, Nagar, Delhi which were also dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds.