PURUSHOTHAMAN JAMBUKESAN Vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions raises two common questions of law, hence they are being decided by this common judgement. The first question of law raised for consideration, pertains to the scope of enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and the second question is about the liability of the Directors of the company under section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (N.I.Act).

(2.) The facts which are relevant for deciding these two questions can be stated as follows:-

(3.) The said contract was for a sum of Rs.1,52,72,000/- for supply of goods. As per the instructions of respondent No. 2, Jain Granites issued fresh proforma invoice which respondent No. 1 accepted along with the terms and conditions stipulated therein and requested Jain Granites to send the material. As against the three sales contract for Rs. 42,62,42,250/- the first respondent had issued three letters of credit for a total sum of Rs. 35,80,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Andheri, Mumbai. On and from 29th November 2014 to 1st December 2014, respondent No. 1's representative picked up materials from the warehouse of Jain Granites in trucks and duly acknowledged receipt of the material. On 1st December 2014, Jain Granites raised tax invoices which were handed over to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 who has duly received and acknowledged the receipt. On 2nd December 2014, upon receipt of supply and invoice, respondent No. 1 wrote to its banker that with reference to aforesaid three letters of credit it had accepted documents received under the said three letters of credit and requested to debit the necessary charges from its account. In between 2nd and 3rd December 2014, the Jain Granites discounted the aforesaid tax invoices and after deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,85,48,142/- Jain Granites account was credited with the sum of Rs. 33,94,51,858/-. On 2nd December 2014 respondent No. 1 suddenly and unilaterally rejected taking goods under the said three proforma invoices and requested to treat the purchase deal as cancelled and called upon Jain Granites to refund the billed amount. Believing on the representation and assurances of respondent No. 1, the Jain Granites in good faith arranged the remaining sum of Rs. 11,21,16,122/- through their bankers. Accordingly, the Jain Granites refunded an amount of Rs. 11,21,15,122/-. While Jain Granites was awaiting the return of the material supplied, vide its letter respondent No. 1 requested Jain Granites to refund a sum of Rs. 22,82,35,736/- and provided its bank details in this behalf. Jain Granites by its letter to respondent No. 1 recorded that subject to necessary debit notes issued by respondent No. 1 for return of the goods duly acknowledged, it would pay back a value of Rs. 22,82,35,736 on or before 31st December 2015. Since goods were not returned, Jain Granites reminded respondent No.1 to return the supplied material, its M.D. and V.P. requested to issue post dated cheques for the repayment of the balance amount to enable respondent No. 1 to return all the materials in the same good condition. With the bona fide intention of amicably resolving the issue, and in good faith, Jain Granites issued five post dated cheques for the total sum of Rs. 22,75,00,000/-. drawn on Indian Overseas bank, Chennai. When the said cheque were presented to the bank they were dishonoured. After issuing demand notice and receiving the reply thereon, five different complaints came to be filed in the court of Additional CMM 33rd Court, Ballard Pier.