VIPUL GUPTA Vs. JAPAN ESTATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the above captioned petitions arise out of one complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'NI Act'), therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, above captioned petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Impugned order of 7th Dec., 2015 summons petitioners as accused in complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act as they are Directors of the accused company. Against the summoning order, petitioners had preferred a revision petition which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 24th Jan., 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are contained in paragraph no. 2 of the complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act and its bare perusal reveals that the allegations leveled against petitioners are not specific and so no case for the summoning is made out. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decisions in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. Food Inspector & Anr., 2011 1 SCC 176; Ashoke Mal Bafna vs. Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Company Ltd.,2018 14 SCC 202 and Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,2016 SCCOnline(SC) 304 in support of the above submissions.