VIJAY GHAI Vs. PAL SINGH KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged three summoning orders passed by the learned Magistrate in three separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Brief facts

(2.) THE petitioner appointed respondent no.2 as its franchisee to sell its products on commission basis vide agreement dated 4 th September, 2006. The franchisee business came to an end with effect from 14th July, 2010 when the parties settled their disputes amicably vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 th July, 2010 and the petitioner paid Rs.5,00,000/ - to the respondent in full and final settlement vide post -dated cheque no.020030 dated 19th February, 2011 drawn on ICICI Bank, Ludhiana which was deposited by respondent no.2 in State Bank of India, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Respondent no.2 issued a notice dated 8th April, 2011 to the petitioner by registered A.D. post duly received by the petitioners who chose not to reply. Respondent no.2 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Respondent no.2 filed the evidence by way of his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in which he proved the memorandum of understanding dated 14th July, 2010 as Ex.CW1/2, cheque, return memo and notice of dishonor and postal receipts as Ex.CW1/3 to Ex.CW1/22. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate considered the said evidence and issued the summons to the petitioners.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.2 supplied the fabric to the petitioners in terms of the order placed by them from time to time and in discharge of the said liability, the petitioners issued cheque No.139095 dated 27th December, 2009 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Ludhiana which was deposited by respondent no.2 in Bank of Baroda, Chandni Chowk and was dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds. Respondent no.2 issued a notice dated 10th June, 2010 by registered A.D. post as well as UPC. Despite service of the said notice by registered A.D. post as well as UPC, the petitioners chose not to reply to the notice. Respondent no.2 instituted the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and led the evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in which he proved the invoices in support of the fabric supplied to the petitioners as Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7, cheque, return memo, notice of dishonor and the postal receipts/A.D. cards as Ex.CW1/8 to Ex.CW1/17. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate considered the evidence of respondent no.2 and issued the summons to the petitioners.