Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Reported As National Small Industries ... vs . on 16 August, 2010 cites

National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010

ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED On the other hand, ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that in view of case law reported as National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. (Supra), accused (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) SCJ­Cum­RC/New Delhi Criminal Complaint (u/s 138 NI Act) Old No.1287/1/05 Criminal Complaint (u/s 138 NI Act) New No.5841/1/09 Page 9/33 no.3 deserves to be acquitted in the present case. As per ld. counsel for the accused, how a particular director is related with the transaction in question has to be pleaded by the complainant in his complaint. As submitted, complainant has failed to prove as to how accused no.3 was concerned with the transaction in question. As per ld. counsel for accused, last few lines in para. 2 of the complaint have been added by complainant after receiving reply Ex. P9. As per ld. counsel for accused, accused no.3 is a teacher and in Form 16 of accused no.3 there is no mention of business income by accused no.3. As per ld. counsel for accused the stand as regards kachchi transaction has been taken by accused even in the beginning of the cross­examination of CW1 Mr. Munish Jain. Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that factum that none of the bill bears the signature of accused no.3 proves that accused no.3 had no concern with the transactions with complainant & she is not covered u/s 141 NI Act. As submitted, accused no.3 is a full time employee of the school where she is working as a teacher. As per ld. counsel for accused the month "May 2005" as written in reply Ex. P9 should be read as "October 2004". Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the mode of (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) SCJ­Cum­RC/New Delhi Criminal Complaint (u/s 138 NI Act) Old No.1287/1/05 Criminal Complaint (u/s 138 NI Act) New No.5841/1/09 Page 10/33 dealing was credit transaction with 15­30 days and as such cheque in question must have been realised within 15­30 days.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 887 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1