B.B. CHAUDHARY Vs. GOVINDER ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act impleading M/s Rimple Furnishers & Decorators as accused No. 1 and one Ravi Malik and Kamaljit Sisodia as accused No. 2 and 3 alleging that they were directors of accused No. 1. Petitioners B.B. Choudhary and his wife Neeru Choudhary were not named as accused persons, much less as direc tors of the company.

(2.) IT was stated in the complaint that Ravi Malik and Kamaljit Sisodia, directors of accused No. 2 had approached and purchased goods from the complainant and had issued certain cheques assuring that the cheques would be encashed on presentation. That the cheques in questioned were returned dishonoured by the banker on whom the cheques were drawn with the remarks "exceeds arrangement". That inspite of service of notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act, no payment was made.

(3.) QUESTIONING the order dated 30.9.2003 it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no averments in the complaint against the petitioners. In the pre-summoning evidence, not a whisper has been made viz-a-viz the conduct of the petitioners in relation to the affairs of accused No.l i.e. the company. That on the mere assertion in the application that petitioners were directors of accused No.l, impugned order has been passed.