Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)Section 22 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 18 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000
"26. As such on plain reading of the aforesaid
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court it becomes
manifestly clear that in a case where restraint order
has been passed by the BIFR under section 22-A and
declared a sick company has failed to make the
payment of the amount either to itself or through its
director for the reasons beyond the control of the said
declared sick company it is for the reasons beyond
their control to arrange for the payments and in view
of the company order passed by BIFR the amount
claimed by the complainant is not recoverable from
the assets of the company. The said observations are
squarely applicable to the instant case in view of the
facts that the subject cheques were admittedly
presented after 19th December 2007 i.e. order passed
by BIFR and the said order was operative for a period
of eight weeks. The complainant in the instant case
has issued statutory demand notice on 21 st January
2008 which was received by the accused No.1 and 3
on 24th January 2008. The statutory period of 15
days prescribed in the notice as per Section 138(b) of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:49:14 :::
10
wp3327-11.doc
repayment is expired on 8th February 2008. The
alleged offence, if any, can be said to be committed
only after 9th February 2008. The accused have
replied the statutory notice of the complainant vide
reply dated 12th February 2008 intimating protection
granted in their favour by BIFR vide order dated 19 th
December 2007. Therefore, these circumstances
clearly demonstrate that the accused No.1 company
and the directors were protected by the orders passed
by BIFR dated 19th December 2007, therefore, in the
light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in thef case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs.
Pennar Petterson Securities Ltd. & Ors., (2000)2 SCC
745 the charge against the accused cannot be said to
be lawful. With these observations I proceed to pass
the following order:-