MAHESHWARI PROTEINS LIMITED Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparant on the record are that M/s Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. (hereinafter referred to aspctitioner No.l) and M/s Ascom International (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) entered into an agreement on 9th October, 1992 under which the petitioners had to process Soyabean at their factory for respondent No. 2 on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. Soyabean had to besupplied by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had to place order on petitioners of minimum quantity of 25,()()()MT during the processing period from 1st October, 1992 to 30th September, 1993. Out ot 25,000 MT, 10,000 MT Soyabean for processing had to be supplied from 1st October. 1992 to 31st December. 1992 and 15,000 MT of of left over sovabean had to be supplied to the petitioners between 1st January, 1993 to 31st March, 1993. Respondent No. 2 for the due performance of the agreement dated 9th October, 1992 advanced Rs. 25 lakh to petitioners as mobilisation amount and the same was repayable by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 with quarterly interest at the end of the said agreement or on termination of said agreement. Petitioners in turn had delivered undated cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs bearing No. MPZ/BFS/CA - 2134399 drawn on Bank of India, Siyaganj Branch, Indore as security for due performance of the terms of agreement.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 i.e. Ascom International terminated the agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 9.10.1992 vide legal notice dated S.I.1993. Despite this notice the petitioners herein did not pay Rs. 25 lakhs plus interest and therefore the respondent No. 2 with prior information to the petitioners presented the said undated cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs before the Bank of India, Siyaganj Branch, Indore through Sh.Vinod Tibrewala on18.1.1993. The said cheque was dishonoured and the bank has stated in "CHEQUE RETURN MEMO" dated 18.1.1993 that the cheque could not be honoured because of insufficient funds. The rcspondent No.1 sent a legaI notice dated 19.1.1993 to the petitioners 1 to 3 stating that they have committed anoffence u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1988 and also u/s 420 IPC. Despite this notice the petitioners have not paid Rs. 25 lakhs with interest and in the process they have dishonoured their own Corporate Guarantee dated 9.10.1992 which made respondent No. 2 to file a complaint u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1988 against these petitioners i.e.M/s Maheshwari Proteins Limited, its Chairman, Mr. Pramod Taparia, its Director, Mr. Harsh Maheshwari and its Company Secretary, Mr. C.S.Bhandari.

(3.) On the basis of this complaint these petitioners were summoned u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988. In this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners have sought the quashing of the complaint and the consequent proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate and also the order calling upon the petitioners to be present before the Metropolitan Magistrate in these proceedings. This petition has been contested by the respondents.