RUBY INFRALOGISTICS PVT. LTD. Vs. RASHMI ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-2021-12-70
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 24,2021

Ruby Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Rashmi Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NITA KANOI @ BANSAL VS. M/S. PARIDHHI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT VS. DATTATRAYA G HEGDE [REFERRED TO]
RANGAPPA VS. SRI MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
JOHN K.ABRAHAM VS. SIMON C.ABRAHAM [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH VS. MUKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
BASALINGAPPA VS. MUDIBASAPPA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

BIBEK CHAUDHURI,J. - (1.)The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court at Calcutta in Complaint Case No. C 30480 of 2013, acquitting the accused persons/respondents from the charge under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Complainant of the aforesaid case is the appellant before this Court after the special leave to appeal filed by the appellant was allowed and the memorandum of appeal was accepted by this Court.
(2.)The complainant/appellant is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was alleged by the complainant-Company that it accommodated a loan of Rs.50,00,000.00 only by way of fixed deposit as collateral on behalf of the respondent no. 1 Company in the Dena Bank, Park Street Branch and in discharging the said legal liabilities and debt, the respondent no. 1 Company issued one account payee cheque bearing no. 354086 dtd. 20/04/2013 for an amount of Rs.50,00,000.00 drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. in favour of the appellant-Company. The said cheque was duly signed by the respondent no. 2 as Director of the respondent no. 1-Company. The appellant-Company presented the said cheque on 11/07/2013 in its account maintained in HDFC Bank Ltd. Park Street Branch but it was returned unpaid by the banker of the respondent-Company on the ground of insufficient fund. The appellant-Company came to know that the said cheque was dishonoured on 26th July, 2013 from the computer generated returned memo dtd. 12th July, 2013. The appellant-Company through its authorized representative sent a demand notice to the respondent no. 1-Company and respondent no. 2, Director of the Company through their learned advocate by registered post with acknowledgement due The accused no. 2 received the said notice on 23rd August, 2013. In spite of receipt of such notice, the respondents failed and neglected to pay the said amount of Rs.50,00,000.00 in favour of the appellantCompany. So was the complaint filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(3.)The case was subsequently transferred to the 20th Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for trial and disposal. The respondent no. 2 duly appeared before the Trial Court. He also represented respondent no. 1-Company when the acquisition against the respondent was stated and explained to respondent no. 2 under Sec. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he pleaded not guilty for self and on behalf of the respondent no. 1-Company. So, the trial of the case commenced.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.