The court quashed two complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act filed for cheque dishonour. The respondent company had been ordered wound up before the cheques were presented, leading the court to allow the quashing petitions.
Complaints bearing nos. 542377/2016 and 542378/2016 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27 & 28
AVINASH CHANDRAKANT PITALE & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta & Mr. Shubhangam Thakur, Advs.
versus CISCO SYSTEM CAPITAL(INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rachit Bigghe, Adv. (through VC)
Through:
versus CISCO SYSTEM CAPITAL(INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rachit Bigghe, Adv. (through VC)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R % 15.02.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:41:22
filing of the complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 18.03.2015, passed by the High Court of Bombay, in Company Petition No. 499/2014.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2024 “SS”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:41:22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act should be quashed given the winding up of the issuing company prior to the presentation of cheques.
To what extent the winding up order of the respondent company bars the prosecution for dishonour of cheques presented post-winding up.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to rely on quashing of similar complaints filed by the respondent for the same transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.M.C. 3239/2019 and Crl.M.C.3245/2019Relied on¶4
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Avinash Chandrakanth Pitale & Ors
Cisco System Capital(India) Pvt Ltd
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
