APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL Vs. COLLAGE CULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 8th January, 2016 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.3775/15 captioned as 'Apparel Export Promotion Council v. Collage Cultures & Others', whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter the 'NI Act') was dismissed. The appellant had re-presented its complaint but the same was not entertained, as it was filed beyond the period as stipulated by the court where it was initially filed, while returning the complaint. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant could maintain its complaint as re-presented.

(2.) Briefly stated, the controversy involved in the present petition arises in the following context. The appellant is a company incorporated under Section 25 of Companies Act, 1956 and is sponsored by the Government of India. It was formed, inter alia, with the object of promoting exports of readymade garments from India to various parts of the world. It is also assigned the task of administering the Garments Policy issued by the Government of India. As a part of its mandate, all persons exporting garments from India to the rest of the world are required to be registered with the appellant.

(3.) The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the appellant under Registration Certificate No.37114. The respondent issued seven cheques: cheque bearing number 566352 for a sum of 29,200/-; cheque bearing no. 566353 for 2,77,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566354 for 5,40,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566355 for 4,17,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566356 for 4,00,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566357 for 5,17,980/-; and cheque bearing no. 566358 for 1,86,060/- (all dated 1st June, 2003), for a total sum of 23,69,200/- for revalidation of its Past Performance Entitlement (PPE), which is permissible under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. The return memo dated 27/28th November, 2003 indicated the reason for dishonour of the cheques as 'funds insufficient'.