R N MALHOTRA Vs. BHUPESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of these seven Petitions, Petitioner R.N Malhotra seeks quashing of the seven complaints filed by Respondent No.1 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act).

(2.) Quashment of the complaints is sought on two grounds. First, the Petitioner was incapacitated to honour the cheques by virtue of a judicial order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) whereby Respondent No.2 M/s. Pearl India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. was restrained from honouring any cheque already issued by the Company; and secondly, during pendency of the Complaints under Section 138 of the Act, the company went into liquidation and winding up proceedings were initiated by the Company Court and thus, the proceedings before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) cannot continue for want of permission from the Company Court.

(3.) It is not in dispute that around 45 post dated cheques were issued on different dates by M/s. Pearl India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. for various invoices in respect of seven complaints with the dates between 28.09.2007 to 16.03.2008. According to the Petitioner, there were three Directors in the company (M/s. Pearl India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.), namely, R.N. Malhotra, (Petitioner herein), S.K. Malhotra and Y.N. Malhotra (Respondent No.3 herein). In the year 2005 S.K. Malhotra, one of the Directors of Respondent No.2 company passed away and Mrs. Nirmal Malhotra his widow became Director in his place. Some disputes arose between the Directors of Respondent No.2 Company as a consequence thereof, a Company Petition No.100/2006 title Nirmal Malhotra & Ors. v. Suman Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. filed in the CLB. Respondent No.2 Company was arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the said Company Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 07.01.2008 an order was passed by the CLB whereby all the cheques issued by Respondent No.2 were ordered to be cancelled and Respondent No.2 was directed to issue fresh cheques signed by all the three Directors. On 10.01.2008, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent No.1 requesting him to return the cheques issued by Respondent No.2 as the same stood cancelled. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 instead of complying with the order dated 07.01.2008 presented all the cheques and after service of the demand notice filed seven complaints. The Petitioner also raised a plea of goods being defective and substandard. The same, however, would not be relevant for the purpose of decision of the instant Petitions.