Arunkumar Shrivastava vs M/S T.C.Communications Pvt.Ltd. on 17 February, 2017

2. In the complaint the authorized representative of M/s. T.C. alleged
that the accused company was engaged in the generation of electricity with
accused No.2, 3 & 7 its authorized signatory, accused No.4 & 5 its
Managing Directors, accused No.6 its Director and accused No.8 & 9
signatories to the cheque and accused No.10 having signed the settlement
dated 3rd October, 2013. In the complaint it was stated that M/s. T.C. had
earlier initiated a complaint under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC read with
Section 138/142 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate against the accused and during the course of
proceedings a settlement was arrived at between M/s. T.C. and accused
company on 3rd October, 2013 before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts wherein M/s. T.C. agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to
payment of ₹74,32,549/-. M/s. T.C. withdrew the complaint. To honour
settlement dated 3rd October, 2013 accused company handed-over 7 post-
dated cheques for different dates. Out of the 7 cheques, when cheque
bearing No.404288 dated 31st March, 2014 for a sum of ₹10 lakhs was
presented, the same was dishonoured with the return memo “Funds
Insufficient” on 21st April, 2014. A legal notice dated 6th May, 2014 was
issued to the accused persons at the addresses which was duly served on
accused. Neither any reply was given to the legal notice nor payment made
in lieu of the cheque amount. Hence for the dishonour of the cheque bearing
No.404288 for a sum of ₹10 lakhs M/s. T.C. filed the above-noted
complaint. On the said complaint the two petitioners herein i.e. Arun Kumar
Shrivastava and Milind Vasant Bodhankar were summoned besides the other

CRL.M.C. Nos. 2247/2016 & 2256/2016 Page 2 of 4
accused.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*