MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Vs. RUPA BANERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the subject petition calls in question order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.98 of 2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge upturns the order dtd. 8/2/2021 passed by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 319 of the CrPC.

(2.) Facts adumbrated are as follows:- The petitioner/complainant claims to be a leading name in the manufacture of sheet metal fabricated products and transformer tanks for overseas and domestic market to meet specific needs of customers and claims to have spread all over the world. The petitioner and one R.N.Banerji and Son entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU' for short) on 2/2/2006, in terms of which R.N.Banerji and Son were appointed as marketing associates of the petitioner and were required to market and install resistant doors - 'System Schroders' door and clean room and duct door manufactured by the complainant. It is the claim of the petitioner that in terms of MoU, R.N.Banerji and Son became responsible for marketing, promotion, after service installation etc. Subsequent to signing of MoU, one Mr. Jolly Banerji began placing purchase orders in the name of 'RNB Design Arc Systems' ('RNB' for short) and due to the long standing business relationship between the petitioner and R.N.Banerji and Son, the petitioner claims to have immediately agreed to the arrangement and continued to make supplies despite the change of name of the concern and claimed that all transactions and correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and Jolly Banerji.

(3.) It is the further claim of the petitioner that despite the change of name of the proprietary concern Jolly Banerji continued to represent himself as the proprietor of RNB. Since all correspondences happened between Jolly Banerji and the petitioner, the petitioner claims to have bona fide believed that Jolly Banerji was the proprietor of RNB and at no point in time Jolly Banerji disclosed that he was not the proprietor but his wife Rupa Banerji was the proprietrix of RNB and he was only representing Rupa Banerji.