Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)

John Zacharia vs Anson Thomas on 2 April, 2025

The first accused, a company engaged in the manufacture of paints had, for the purpose of augmenting its business, borrowed money from the complainants namely, Anson Thomas and James V. J., during the period 09.12.2018 to 06.08.2019. While so, Anson joined as a Director of the 1st accused company from 22.03.2019 and resigned on 15.02.2020, in terms of the agreement entered with the incumbent Directors on 13.02.2020. In accordance with the terms of that agreement, 24 cheques totaling Rs.46,97,788/-, drawn on the account of the 2025:KER:33124 Crl.M.C. No.10006 of 2023 and connected cases -:13:- company, were issued in favour of Anson and 8 cheques, totalling Rs.16,50,000/-, in favour of James. The said agreement dated 13.02.2020 was prepared and notarized by the petitioner in his professional capacity as Advocate and Notary Public. Though the petitioner himself became a full-time Director of the first accused company on 18.02.2020, he retired from the Director Board on 22.03.2021. The cheques issued in favour of the complainants were thereafter presented for collection and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act were issued and the accused having failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques despite receipt of those notices, the complaints were filed. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the premise that he was not the Director of the first accused company, either at the time of issuance of the cheques or when the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

John Zacharia vs James V.J on 2 April, 2025

The first accused, a company engaged in the manufacture of paints had, for the purpose of augmenting its business, borrowed money from the complainants namely, Anson Thomas and James V. J., during the period 09.12.2018 to 06.08.2019. While so, Anson joined as a Director of the 1st accused company from 22.03.2019 and resigned on 15.02.2020, in terms of the agreement entered with the incumbent Directors on 13.02.2020. In accordance with the terms of that agreement, 24 cheques totaling Rs.46,97,788/-, drawn on the account of the 2025:KER:33124 Crl.M.C. No.10006 of 2023 and connected cases -:13:- company, were issued in favour of Anson and 8 cheques, totalling Rs.16,50,000/-, in favour of James. The said agreement dated 13.02.2020 was prepared and notarized by the petitioner in his professional capacity as Advocate and Notary Public. Though the petitioner himself became a full-time Director of the first accused company on 18.02.2020, he retired from the Director Board on 22.03.2021. The cheques issued in favour of the complainants were thereafter presented for collection and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act were issued and the accused having failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques despite receipt of those notices, the complaints were filed. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the premise that he was not the Director of the first accused company, either at the time of issuance of the cheques or when the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

John Zacharia vs Anson Thomas on 2 April, 2025

The first accused, a company engaged in the manufacture of paints had, for the purpose of augmenting its business, borrowed money from the complainants namely, Anson Thomas and James V. J., during the period 09.12.2018 to 06.08.2019. While so, Anson joined as a Director of the 1st accused company from 22.03.2019 and resigned on 15.02.2020, in terms of the agreement entered with the incumbent Directors on 13.02.2020. In accordance with the terms of that agreement, 24 cheques totaling Rs.46,97,788/-, drawn on the account of the 2025:KER:33124 Crl.M.C. No.10006 of 2023 and connected cases -:13:- company, were issued in favour of Anson and 8 cheques, totalling Rs.16,50,000/-, in favour of James. The said agreement dated 13.02.2020 was prepared and notarized by the petitioner in his professional capacity as Advocate and Notary Public. Though the petitioner himself became a full-time Director of the first accused company on 18.02.2020, he retired from the Director Board on 22.03.2021. The cheques issued in favour of the complainants were thereafter presented for collection and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act were issued and the accused having failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques despite receipt of those notices, the complaints were filed. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the premise that he was not the Director of the first accused company, either at the time of issuance of the cheques or when the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

John Zacharia vs James V.J on 2 April, 2025

The first accused, a company engaged in the manufacture of paints had, for the purpose of augmenting its business, borrowed money from the complainants namely, Anson Thomas and James V. J., during the period 09.12.2018 to 06.08.2019. While so, Anson joined as a Director of the 1st accused company from 22.03.2019 and resigned on 15.02.2020, in terms of the agreement entered with the incumbent Directors on 13.02.2020. In accordance with the terms of that agreement, 24 cheques totaling Rs.46,97,788/-, drawn on the account of the 2025:KER:33124 Crl.M.C. No.10006 of 2023 and connected cases -:13:- company, were issued in favour of Anson and 8 cheques, totalling Rs.16,50,000/-, in favour of James. The said agreement dated 13.02.2020 was prepared and notarized by the petitioner in his professional capacity as Advocate and Notary Public. Though the petitioner himself became a full-time Director of the first accused company on 18.02.2020, he retired from the Director Board on 22.03.2021. The cheques issued in favour of the complainants were thereafter presented for collection and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act were issued and the accused having failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques despite receipt of those notices, the complaints were filed. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the premise that he was not the Director of the first accused company, either at the time of issuance of the cheques or when the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

John Zacharia vs Anson Thomas on 2 April, 2025

The first accused, a company engaged in the manufacture of paints had, for the purpose of augmenting its business, borrowed money from the complainants namely, Anson Thomas and James V. J., during the period 09.12.2018 to 06.08.2019. While so, Anson joined as a Director of the 1st accused company from 22.03.2019 and resigned on 15.02.2020, in terms of the agreement entered with the incumbent Directors on 13.02.2020. In accordance with the terms of that agreement, 24 cheques totaling Rs.46,97,788/-, drawn on the account of the 2025:KER:33124 Crl.M.C. No.10006 of 2023 and connected cases -:13:- company, were issued in favour of Anson and 8 cheques, totalling Rs.16,50,000/-, in favour of James. The said agreement dated 13.02.2020 was prepared and notarized by the petitioner in his professional capacity as Advocate and Notary Public. Though the petitioner himself became a full-time Director of the first accused company on 18.02.2020, he retired from the Director Board on 22.03.2021. The cheques issued in favour of the complainants were thereafter presented for collection and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, notices under Section 138(b) of the N.I.Act were issued and the accused having failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques despite receipt of those notices, the complaints were filed. The petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the premise that he was not the Director of the first accused company, either at the time of issuance of the cheques or when the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document
1