CHANANA STEEL TUBES Vs. GANESH STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Chanana Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 26/4, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and Shri N. K. Cheema its managing director filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. RC. for quashing complaint Annexure P/1 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act for short) against them and for quashing proceedings and summoning order Annexure P/7.

(2.) THE respondent-M/s. Ganesh Steel Industries filed complaint Annexure P/1 on the allegations that petitioner No. 1 purchased through petitioner No. 2 iron goods of the value of Rs. 1,60,954. 49 vide bill No. 839 and again purchased iron goods on 5. 1. 1991 of the value of Rs. 1,51,705. 20 vide bill No. 853. The total value of the material purchased came to Rs. 3,12,659. 69. The petitioners agreed to pay interest on all the amounts remaining unpaid for more than 17 days as per dhara established by the Gobindgarh Chamber of Trade Industries which was 3% per month. In order to clear part of liability petitioner No. 2 issued cheque No. 150028 dated 13. 4. 1991 against Account No. 2625 maintained by the company in the Punjab National Bank, Patel Nagar (West), New Delhi, in favour of the complainant firm. The cheque was presented for collection but the same was returned unpaid with the memo dated 24. 4. 1991 showing that the payment had been stopped. The payment was stopped in view of the fact that the petitioners had no sufficient funds to clear the cheque. A notice as required under Section 138 of the act was issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay the amount covered by the cheque by way of a bank draft within 15 days from the receipt of the notice dated 16. 5. 1991 but the petitioner did not make payment.

(3.) THE petitioners alleged that the material supplied by the respondents was of low quality and short in length and in fact that was not the material which was ordered to be supplied so the respondents were requested to suitably amend the bills. Respondent No. 1 assured them that the matter pertaining to the supply of material will be settled amicably and he will reduce the rates, so another order was placed for supply of iron scalps. These goods did not reach the premises of the factory of petitioner No. 1 so encashment of cheques which were delivered to the respondent as an advance payment was stopped and later Annexure P/3 was sent to the respondents explaining them the circumstances under which they had committed a fraud with the petitioners and had obtained advance cheques dishonestly. It was further pleaded that the cheque which was drawn on the bank was not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability nor it was returned unpaid because the amount available in the account was insufficient for making the payment of the cheque.