w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S Rama Vision Limited

    Criminal Misc. Nos. 3019-3022 of 2005

    Decided On, 10 July 2006

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: A.K. SIKRI

    For Petitioner: Mr. Vishwendra Verma with Ms. Subhani And For Respondents: Mr. O.P. Shekhawat



Judgment Text


1. M/s. Rama Vision Ltd., respondent in the present proceedings, has filed a complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act'), which is numbered as Complaint Case No.84/2004 entitled M/s. Rama Vision Limited v. M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. It is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The complaint is founded on the allegations that M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was having business relations with the complainant and against the supply of goods, the co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mpany gave certain cheques which were dishonoured on presentation with the endorsement "insufficient funds". Legal notice under Section 138 of the Act was sent by Speed Post A.D., UPC as well as through carrier (courier?) to the company as well as its directors and thereafter complaint was filed as in spite of the said notice the money was not given to the complainant. Pre-summoning evidence was recorded whereafter the learned MM summoned all the accused persons. In the said complaint, the company is arrayed as accused No.1 and four other persons, who are the directors of the accused No.1 company, are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5.

2. In this petition filed on behalf of the company and three directors (accused Nos.2 to 4 in the complaint), the summoning orders are challenged. Insofar the company is concerned, which is the petitioner No.1 in this petition, the challenge is on the ground that Shri R.K. Sehgal, who filed the complaint on behalf of the complainant, is not a duly authorised person because the alleged authorisation letter was issued on 31.12.2000, long before the cause of action is purported to have been arisen on 06.12.2003. On behalf of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 the ground made is that they resigned from the directorship of the company on 14.11.2003 and 15.11.2003 respectively, whereas the demand notice is dated 06.12.2003 and, therefore, they cannot be made liable. Furthermore, it is contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the complaint.

3. In the reply filed by the respondent, it is denied that Mr. R.K. Sehgal is not the authorised representative. It is stated that he is the Company Secretary of the respondent company and is a duly authorised person arid competent to initiate legal proceedings and depose before the courts. The Board of Directors of the respondent company have duly authorised him to file the cases on behalf of the company. It is stated that it is a general authorisation and in law no specific authorisation for a particular case is required. It is also pointed out that he is a principal officer as per the provisions of the Companies Act and is, therefore, entitled to file the cases on behalf of the respondent company even on this ground. The allegations that the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 resigned as Directors is denied and it is also submitted that in any case they did not resign from the Board of Directors during the relevant period and no documents have been supplied to the respondent in this regard. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against all the directors in the complaint.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that no legal issues are raised by the petitioners on the basis of which they could maintain the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have admitted that there is an authorisation letter issued in favour of Mr. R.K. Sehgal on 31.12.2000. It is also not in dispute that he is the Company Secretary. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that there need not be any specific authorisation of the Board of Directors for filing each case and there can be general authorisation to an officer by the Board of Directors. The copy of the authorisation letter dated 31.12.2000 has not been filed on record. Ultimately, the question as to whether Mr. R.K. Sehgal is duly authorised to file the complaint 011 behalf of the respondent company or not is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be gone into in these proceedings in the absence of particular documents produced before this Court.

5. Same is the position in respect of the other contentions. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 resigned from the directorship of the company on 14.11.2003 and 15.11.2003 respectively. The averments made in the complaint would reveal that the company had earlier issued two cheques of Rs.42.000/- each, which were replaced by cheques dated 11.11.2003 and 13.11.2003. When these cheques were issued, even as per their own showing, the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 were still the directors as they resigned only on 14/15.11.2003. Further, what is significant to note is that the cheques in question were signed by the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 and since they issued these cheques and were the signatories to these documents, they cannot shy away from their obligation now on the ground that they resigned after the issuance of the cheques and before the cheques were deposited in the bank.

6. I also find from the reading of the complaint that there are specific averments made in the complaint that all the directors are in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day working and conduct of the business affairs of the company, being its directors authorised representatives/authorised signatories. It is also specifically stated that all these directors, namely, accused Nos.2 to 5, had approached the complainant after the dishonour of the cheques and had assured that they would honour their commitments. It is also stated that notices were issued to all these directors after the cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, whether these directors or any of them were or not in-charge of or evidence to be decided before the trial court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.

O R