Re: [IAC#RG] SUPREME COURT CRYING FOR JUSTICE

Q. Is it a sufficient reason to hold him as an accused.

Ans: YES. The cheque was possibly a "post dated" cheque issued at the time the accused was a director in the company (-2009) There are conflicting judgments on liability of directors, but the singular admitted fact that in 2010 the accused still promoted the company to 3rd parties arouses suspicion that the resignation in 2009 was contrived.

In any case, this mailing list a not a forum for speculation on selectively provided facts, we have the WWW.INDIARESISTS.IN forum for that

Sarbajit

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:13 PM, neeraj singla <nsingla@hotmail.com> wrote:

I will bring a curious case for your kind perusal

This is a case of cheque bounce under section 138 of NI Act
 
A cheque was issued by a complainant company to an accused company. The cheque bounce took place sometime in Oct 2010.

The accused had resigned from the directorship of the accused company in Nov 2009. He produced certified copy of Form 32 from Registrar of companies, to prove that he had resigned in Nov 2009. In addition he was never a paid employee of the accused company. The cheque was not signed by him.

He was not a signatory in the agreement under which the cheques were issued. He was not even mentioned in the agreement.

Only that he made an email to a third party ( not to the complainant ) in Apr 2010, promoting the accused company.

Status : You will appreciate that he has been made an accused in an MM court and when he challenged it in high court, the hon judge, based on the Apr 2010 e-mail gave a decision to examine whether the accused was a director or not and ordered for continuation of proceedings of the trial court. And the case is since pending in both the courts.

Q. Is it a sufficient reason to hold him as an accused.

best regards
Neeraj Singla