Nagpur: The District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur Moreshwar Kulkarni dismissed the revision of the Complainant Company Komal Foods International Pvt. Ltd., wherein the complainant had prayed that in the proceedings under the N.I. Act filed by the Company against one Jamnadas & Company, they intended to amend the complaint by adding 2 more accused in the said proceedings. Simultaneously the said Court proceeded to allow the proceedings for discharge of the alleged partner of the accused Jamnadas & Company i.e. Vinay Udeshi.
The Complainant Company had filed proceeding under the N.I. Act against Jamnadas & Company through its partners Mukesh and Vinay Udeshi and was successful in obtaining an order of issuance of process with directions to the accused persons to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. Being aggrieved by the same Vinay Udeshi had moved before the Hon’ble High Court and had prayed for quashing of the order of issuance of the process and the order of payment of interim deposit of 20% 0f the cheque amount of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs. The High Court had directed the accused Vinay to approach before the District Court with directions to dispose of the revision in 3 months. When the matter was argued before the District Court, the complainant had also moved before the District Court against the order passed by the Special Court N.I. Act, whereby the Special Court had rejected the application of the Complainant Company to add 2 more accused in the said proceedings.
Today’s Rate
Saturday 28 Sept. 2024
Adv. Prakash Naidu on behalf of the accused persons argued that the accused Vinay Udeshi had been nefariously arrayed as an accused by the Complainant Company despite the Complainant Company being aware that Vinay was not a partner of the said firm. It was pointed out that Complainant Company had mischievously arrayed Vinay Udeshi as a legal heir of deceased Jamnadas in the proceedings and that the Law did not contemplate or permit arraying the legal heir of the person who has defaulted with the cheque and that the criminal liability cannot be passed over and/or transferred upon to the legal heir of the person who had issued cheque and as such it was prayed that Vinay should be discharged/acquitted of the said case. Defending the criminal revision filed by the Complainant Company Adv. Naidu argued that the Complainant Company intended to array and add 2 more persons in the proceedings by contending that those 2 persons were the partners of the accused firm and that the Complainant Company claimed to have gained knowledge of the said fact after filing of the complaint and hence those 2 persons should be permitted to be added as an accused. Refuting the arguments advanced by the Complainant Company, Adv. Naidu argued that the very genesis of triggering the proceedings under the N.I. Act was substantiated on the platform of issuance of the mandated Demand Notice as contemplated under the N.I. Act. That since the Complainant Company had not issued the mandated Demand Notice to the proposed 2 accused persons within the mandated time frame; those 2 persons could not be permitted to be roped in the array of accused.
Appreciating the arguments the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur Shri Moreshwar Kulkarni proceeded to discharge the accused Vinay Udeshi from the said proceedings and proceeded to reject the prayer of the Complainant Company, whereby the complainant had prayed for addition of the accused. Advocate Prakash Naidu, Homesh Chauhan, Mitesh Bais, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole) represented the accused persons. Adv Satish Mehta represented the Complainant Company.
