A.MEENAIAH, LECTURER Vs. G.ECONARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.28/2002 on the file of District Forum, Nalgonda , opposite parties 3 and 5 preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant sold the shares of Leading Edge Systems Ltd. to Gayatri Capital Ltd., opposite party .2 on 29.3.2000. Out of the total consideration, opposite party no.2 paid in cash Rs.50,000/- and cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- and kept Rs.40,000/- as Margin Money. Opposite party no.2 issued cheque with a signature of opposite party no.8 on 18.4.2000 towards final payment for an amount of Rs.2,24,305.70 which was returned for insufficient funds. C.C.No.6/2001 under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against opposite party no.1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint before opposite party no.9 National Stock Exchange , Chennai on 14.9.2000 and a complaint was registered as necessary clarification and documentary evidence is required within 10 days. An additional information was served to opposite party no.9 on 30.11.2000 and an explanation was called for from opposite party no.1 who deny the cheque issued by opposite party no.8 on behalf of opposite party no.2. A police complaint was also lodged by the complainant against opposite parties 1 to 8. Vexed with their attitude the complainant preferred this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.2,24,305.70 and margin money of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 12.4.2000 and directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.

(3.) Opposite parties 1, 2 and 11 filed version stating that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant and complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on that count alone as the complainant sold his shares on 29.3.2000 and the complaint should have been filed within two years from 29.3.2000 which is the cause of action but the complaint was filed on 8.4.2002. Opposite parties submit that at the first instance the complainant filed a criminal case against opp.party no.1 on 26.11.2000 before S.H.O., Nalgonda, II Town Police Station with the same allegations and the police after investigation filed Charge Sheet on 31.1.2001 deleting the names of employees of opp.party no.1 and subsequently he filed a private complaint in C.C.No.6/2000 against all the opposite parties for dishonour of cheque issued by opp.party no.8. Opp.parties submit that opp.party no.8 was not related to opp.parties 1 and 2 Company and they were not aware of the cheque issued by opp.party no.8. Opposite party no.1 never signed any type of agreement with any of the other opp.parties. Opp.party no.9 on the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant called for explanation and the case was closed having satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Company. Opp.party no.2 branch started functioning from September 2000 only and they do not know who is opposite party no.8 and he is no way related to opposite parties 1 and 2.They never issued a cheque in favour of the complainant and they do not have any account with the alleged Sangamithra Cooperative Bank, Nalgonda and that opposite party no.11 has unnecessarily made a party to the complaint. Opposite parties 3 and 4 filed counter stating that they are not aware that opposite party no.2 issued cheque with the signature of opposite party no. 8 on 18.4.2000 and on 12.4.2000 for a amount of Rs.2,24,305.70 and that the cheque was dishonoured. A criminal case was pending under Section 138 of N.I. Act against opposite parties 1 to 8. They deny that they influenced opposite party no.9 not to take action with regard to the complaint filed by the complainant. They submit that they are not responsible for any cheating and that they did not collude with opposite parties 1,2, 5 to 8 and 11.They deny that they are the partners of opposite party no.1 and that they executed a Partnership Deed dt.2.8.99 under the name and style Shiridi Sai Share Consultancy and that the said persons also entered into agreement on 4.10.99 with opp.party no.1. In C.C.No.6/2001 on the file of JFCM, Nalgonda these opposite parties already stated in their counter that it is a fictitious prosecution and that their deposition in C.C.No.128/01 is not concerned with the complainant herein.