M.SUKUMAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners - A6 and A9 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in CC No. 402 of 2013 on the file of IX Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

(2.) The 2nd respondent, a banking company, lodged a private complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad on 02/03/2013 stating that A1 being a Limited Company, and A2 being the Vice Chairman of A1 Company and A3 to A9 being the Directors of the A1 Company availed Rs.50.00 crores towards short term loan on 10/01/2012 for general corporate purpose which was repayable with interest at 1.5% over and above the base rate of bank as applicable from time to time, with floating rate linked to its rate compounding on monthly basis. The said amount was repayable in bullet payment at the end of 364 days, but the interest was to be paid every month. The collateral security was also given to the said loan as (1) Lien on fixed deposit to a tune of Rs.10.00 crores, (2) Negative Lien on Uniliner Machinery and (3) a post dated cheque for Rs.50.00 crores. Apart from the above security, the Chairman Sri T. Venkatram Reddy i.e. A3, Sri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Vice Chairman i.e. A2 and Sri P.K.Iyer, Vice Chairman i.e. A4 stood as Guarantors to the said loan in the name of A1 Company. A2 acknowledged the terms and conditions of loan sanction communication and executed all necessary loan documents. A4 executed another agreement of guarantee separately on the same day i.e. on 10/01/2012 in favour of the complainant, A2 on behalf of A1 was authorized to borrow the loan in pursuance of their Board Resolution dated 16/12/2011. Therefore, as per Sec. 293 of the Companies Act, all the other accused being the Directors of A1 Company, got knowledge of borrowing of Rs.50.00 crores from the complainant bank by A1 Company and were liable for repayment. Despite several demands made by the complainant, the accused did not keep up the word for repaying the interest as agreed. Their accounts were classified as non-performing assets on 19.11.2012. As per the agreement, the fixed deposit of Rs.10.00 crores made by the accused with the complainant was closed and appropriated towards the loan account of the accused. Apart from the above said loan, A1 also previously availed other loan HPMA-New Loan of Rs.25.00 crores on 19.12.2008. Therefore, the total amount due by the accused to the complainant was Rs.50,41,09,075.75 ps., as on 31.12.2012 which remained unpaid by the accused to the complainant. Since the accused failed to repay the loan amount, the cheque dated 10.01.2013 given by the accused on 10.01.2012 was presented by the complainant for collection and the same was returned by the bankers of the accused i.e. Canara Bank, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad with an endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT. " The complainant issued a legal notice to all the accused on 19/01/2013 and as the accused neither paid the amount nor did give any reply, lodged the complaint under Ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act ').

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.