Global Trade Finance Pvt.ltd.-Sk

7/28/2019 Global Trade Finance Pvt.ltd.-Sk

1/53

IN THE LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES

7

TH

COURT AT DADARCriminal Case No. / S-S/2005

M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA

A Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1913 having its

Office at Farm Equipment Sector ,

Mahindra Towers, 3rd floor,

Worli, Mumbai 400 018.

Through its authorised officer

Mr. Ketan Gadgil

..Complainant

V/s.

1. M/s. Shree Jalaram Tractors

a Partnership Firm, having

its office at

Nr. Dabhan Police Chowki,

Gujrat .

2. Mr. Hashmukhbhai Umedbhai Patel

3. Mr. Harshnil Hashmukhbhai Patel

4. Mr. Riteshkumar Hashmukh Patel

Above 3 Partners of M/s. Shree Jalaram

Tractors are rsiding at 116, Jalram Society,

Borsad, Dist. Anand, Gujrat.

5. Mr. Arvinbhai Umedbhai Patel

6. Mr. Natubhai Umedbhai Patel

Above 2 partgners of M/s. Shree Jalaram

Tractors are residing at Keshavdas Ni Khadki

P.O. Siswa, Tal. Borsad, Dist. Anand, Gujrat.

Accused


2/53

PRIVATE COMPLAINT UNDER

SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 141 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP :

1. The Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Indian

Companies Act, 1913 and has its Office at the address mentioned in

the cause title. The Complainant Company is, interalia, engaged in the

business of manufacturing & supplying Tractors, its accessories & its

spare parts. The present Complaint is filed by the Complaint

Company through its authorised officer Mr. Ketan Gadgil who is

conversant with the facts of the present case and is also duly

authorised to file the present Complaint. Hereto annexed and marked

Exhibit A is the coy of the Power of attorney of the Compliant

Company in favour of Mr. Ketan Gadgil.

2. The Complainant Company submits that Accused No. 1 is a

partnership Firm under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act.

Accused No. 2 was looking after the day to day affairs and has

guaranteed the payments due and payable by Accused No. 1 to the

compliant company in his capacity as Partner and is also signatory to

the cheque in question. Accused No. 3 to 6 are other Partners of

Accused No. 1 and has also guaranteed the payments due and payable

by Accused No. 1 to the Complainant Company in their capacity as

Partners.

3. The Complainant submits that the Complainant Company have

supplied their products viz. Tractors, its accessories, spare parts etc. to

Accused No. 1 to the extent o Rs. 279 Lacs under the terms entered

into under the Dealer Agreement dated 30th August, 2003 executed by

accused No. 1 with Complainant Company.


3/53

4. Acused No. 1,

1. I say that our Company have been supplying our products viz.

Tractors, their accessories, spare parts etc. to you in terms of the

dealer agreement enter into our Company and Accused No. 1. I say

that Accused No. 2 on behalf of Accused No. 1 i.e. M/s. Shree

Jalaram Tractors has issued us a cheque bearing No. 0041542 dated

01/08/2005 drawn on Union Bank of India, Nadiad Branch, Gujrat for

Rs. 2,79,00,000/- duly signed by Accused No. 2 in capacity as a

Partner of Accused No. 1 in discharge of the legally enforceable

liability of Accused No. 1 due and payable to Complainant Company

under the dealership agreement dated 30/08/2003. I say that being

Authorised Officer of the complainant company who have duly

authorized me to file this the present complaint and as such I am

familiar and conversant with the facts of the case. Hereto annexed

and marked Exhibit A is the copy of the Power of Attorney of the

complainant company.

2. I say that Accused No. 1 is Partnership firm of which Accused

No. 2 to 6 are the Partners and Accused No. 2 is the Authorized

signatory. At all material time relevant and relating to the complaint

Accused No. 2 to 6 were and are in charge of and responsible for the

conduct of business of Accused No.1 and are also looking after day to

day affairs of Accused No.1 i.e. Partnership Firm. I am annexing

herewith a copy of Deed of Partnership of Accused No. 1 which is

signed by all above Accusedand it is also referred in to Para No.

10 of the same which shows that all Partners are concerned with

day to day affairs management of Accused No. 1

:: 3 ::

It is further submitted that Accused No.2 to 6 with Accused No.1 are

liable to be prosecuted and / or connived in the commission of the

present offence, in their capacity as Partners and signatory of the said

partnership firm.


4/53

3. I say that we have presented the said cheque issued to us by the

accused for collection through our clearing bankers viz. State Bank of

India, CAG Branch, Mumbai. However said cheque was returned to

us unpaid being dishonoured by accused Bankers viz. Union Bank of

India, Nadiad Branch with remark Exceeds Arrangements. We

have received the dishonoured cheque through our bankers with their

memo on 23/08/2005.

4. I say that as narrated in Para 2 accused No. 2 to 6 being

responsible for the affairs of Accused No.1 i.e.. Partnership Firm are

liable to be prosecuted for having committed a criminal offence in the

event of failure on their part to comply with the requisitions

contained in the statutory notice dtd. 01/09/2005 which sent to them

both under R.P.A.D. & U.P.C. at their last known Address as well as

Residential Address. I further say that notice was duly received by all

the accused on or about 07/09/2005. However accused have failed

and neglected to make our payment under the above said dishonoured

cheque.

5. I say that above accused have thus committed an offence

punishable u/s 138 r/w of 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act as

amended).

6. I say that the intimation for dishnoured of cheques was received by

Complainant Company at their office which is situated in the

jurisdiction of this Honble Court. Further the dealings and other

correspondence with respect to the present transactions is also took

place from the office situated at Worli as such this Honble Court is

competent to entertain and try this present complaint.

:: 4 ::

7. The statutory notice dated 01/09/2005was issued to the accused

within the stipulated time and the present complaint is being filed

within the prescribed period as provided under section 142(b) of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.


5/53

8. Under this circumstances it is prayed that this Honble Court may

be pleased to issue process against the accused for the commission of

the said offence and they may be dealt with according to law.

It is further prayed that if penalty is imposed on conviction the

same may be refunded to the complainant.

And for this act of kindness the complainant shall ever pray :

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS / WITNESSES :

1. Dishonoured Cheques.

2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Acknowledgement Receipt

5. Manager of State Bank of India, CAGBranch, Mumbai

to produce necessary documents.

6. Any other witnesses with the permission of this Honble

Court.

.


6/53

BEFORE THE LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES

12TH COURT AT BANDRA

C. C. NO./ / S-S /2005

GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE PVT. LTD.

THROUGH

Shri Anirudh Singh, Girijashankar Singh Thakur,

Office situated at, Metropolitan Building,

6th floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ..Complainant

V/s.

1. M/s. Alka International Ltd.

19/37, Jainpuri, Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

2. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain

Managing Director


UTTAR PRADESH.

3. Mr. Vivek Jain

Director


UTTAR PRADESH.

4. Mr. Amit Jain

Director


UTTAR PRADESH.

5. Mr. Paras Kumar Jain

Director


UTTAR PRADESH.

6. Smt. Poonam Jain

Director


UTTAR PRADESH.

7. Vinod Bala Jain

Director


UTTAR PRADESH.


7/53

. ..Accused

CHARGES : U/S, 138 r/w 141 of

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

CLAIM FOR Rs. 1,15,00,000/-

..2

:: 2 ::


I, Shri Anirudh Singh Girijashanka Singh Thakur, Chief

Manager Legal & Company Secretary having its registered

office situated at, Metropolitan Building, 6th floor, Bandra -

Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, do herby

stat on solemn affirmation as under. :-

1. I say that the accused No. 2 to accused No. 7 on behalf of

Accused No. 1 have approached us with request for trade

finance facility and accordingly said facility has been

granted by us to the accused for the amount of

Rs.3,44,00,000/-.

2. That in discharge of said liability towards the abovesaid

trade finance facility due and payable to us accused had

issued us a cheque bearing No. 674143 dated 08.10.2005

drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. New Delhi Branch

for sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- as a part payment duly signed

by accused no.3 on behalf of accused no.1. I say that being

a Manager Legal & Company Secretary of the complainant

company who has duly authorized me to file this the present

complaint and as such I am familiar and conversant with the

facts of the case. Board resolution dtd. 30.09.2003 is

annexed herewith.


8/53

3. I say that Accused No. 1 is limited company of which

accused No. 2 to accused No. 7 are the directors and

accused no.3 is authorized signatory of accused No. 1. At

all material time relevant and relating to the complaint

Accused No. 2 to 7 were and are in charge of and

responsible for the conduct of business of Accused No.1 and

.. 3

:: 3 ::

are also looking after day to day affairs of Accused No.1. It

is further submitted that Accused No.2 to 7 with Accused

No.1 are liable to be prosecuted and / or connived in the

commission of the present offence, in their capacity as a

directors and signatory of the said limited company.

4. I say that we have presented the said cheque issued to us by

the accused for collection through our clearing bankers viz.

HDFC Bank Worli branch, Mumbai. However said cheque

was returned to us unpaid being dishonoured by accused

Bankers with remark Insufficient Fund. We have

received the dishonour cheque through our bankers with

their memo on 18.10.2005.

5. I say that as narrated in para 1 accused No. 2 to 7 being

responsible for the affairs of Accused No.1 i.e.. limited

company are liable to be prosecuted for having committed a

criminal offence in the event of failure on their part to

comply with the requisitions contained in the statutory

notice dtd. 11.11.2005, which sent to them both underR.P.A.D. & U.P.C. I further say that all notices came back

by postal authorities with the remark dated 19.11.2005 not

found. However notice was also send through U.P.C. on the

said address which is presumed to be received by all

accused. Thus accused have failed and neglected to make

our payment under the above said dishonoured cheque.


9/53


punishable u/s 138 r/w of 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act

(as amended).

7. I say that the office of the complainant company is situated

..4

:: 4 ::

within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and hence this

court is competent to entertain and try this present

complaint.

8. The statutory notice was issued to the accused within the

stipulated time and the present complaint is being filed

within the prescribed period as provided under section

142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

9. Under this circumstances it is prayed that this Honble

Court may be pleased to issue process against the accused

for the commission of the said offence and they may be dealt

with according to law.

It is further prayed that if penalty is imposed on conviction

the same may be refunded to the complainant.


MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT


10/53

..5

:: 5 ::


1. Dishonoured Cheque.

2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Return Notices Postal Slips

5. Manager of both the bankers to produce necessary

documents.


Court.


11/53


9TH COURT AT BANDRA

C. C. NO./ /S-S/2004


THROUGH

Shri Aniruddh Singh, Girijashankar Singh Thakur,


6th floor, bandra Kurla Complex,


V/s.

1. M/s. Kalyani Exports

4, Ujagar Estate, sub plot 2-D,

W.T.Patil Marg, Deonar

Mumbai 400 088.

2. Kamalaksha R. Padubidri

Partner of M/s. Kalynai Exports


W.T.Patil Marg, Deonar

Mumbai 400 088.

3. Premalaksha Padubidri

Partner of M/s. Kalynai Exports


W.T.Patil Marg, DeonarMumbai 400 088. ..Accused



CLAIM FOR Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

---------------------------------2


12/53

:: 2 ::


I, Shri Aniruddh Singh Girijashanka Singh Thakur, Manager

Legal & Secretary having its registered office situated at,

Metropolitan Building, 6th floor, Bandra - Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, do herby stat on solemn

affirmation as under. :-

1. I say that the accused No. 2 & 3 on behalf of Accused No. 1

have approached us with request for export factoring and

purchase order facility and accordingly export factoring and

purchase order facility has granted by us to the accused. I

further say that the outstanding of the said facility is

standing as on March, 2004 to the tune of Rs. 9,25,00,000/-

that in discharge of said liability accused had issued us a

cheque bearing No. 848567 dated 04.03.2004 drawn on

Federal Bank Ltd. Chembur Branch for sum of Rs.

1,00,00,000/- as a part payment. I say that being a Manager

Legal & Company Secretary of the complainant company

who have duly authorized me to file this the present


facts of the case. A Authority letter dtd. 25.08.2003 is

annexed herewith.

2. I say that Accused No. 1 is Partnership firm of which

Accused No. 2 & 3 are the partners and are also authorized

signatories of accused No. 1. At all material time relevant and

relating to the complaint Accused No. 2 & 3 were and are in

charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of

Accused No.1 and is also looking after day to day affairs of

Accused No.1 i.e. Partnership Firm. It is further submitted that

Accused No.2 & 3.

.3


13/53

:: 3 ::

with Accused No.1 are liable to be prosecuted and / or connived

in the commission of the present offence, in their capacity as

Partners and signatory of the said partnership firm.



Standard Chartered Bank 90, M.G.Road, Mumbai. However

said cheque was returned to us unpaid being dishonoured by

accused Bankers viz. Federal Bank Ltd. Chembur Branch with

remarkIn sufficient Fund. We have received the dishonour

cheque through our bankers with their memo on 05.03.2004.

4. I say that as narrated in para 1 accused No. 2 & 3 being

responsible for the affairs of Accused No.1 i.e.. Partnership

Firm is liable to be prosecuted for having committed a criminal

offence in the event of failure on their part to comply with the

requisitions contained in the statutory notice dtd. 11.03.2004

which sent to them both under R.P.A.D. & U.P.C. I further say

that notice was duly received by the accused on or about

15.03.2004. However accused have failed and neglected to

make our payment under the above said dishonoured cheque.


punishable u/s 138 r/w of 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act (as

amended).

6. I say that intimation about the dishonoured of the saidcheque was received in our office at the above complainant

company which is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Honble Court, as such this Honble Court is competent to

entertain and try this present complaint.

..4


14/53

:: 4 ::


stipulated time and the present complaint is being failed within

the prescribed period as provided under section 142(b) of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

8. Under this circumstances it is prayed that this Honble Court

may be pleased to issue process against the accused for the

commission of the said offence and they may be dealt with

according to law.



AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE COMPLAINANT

SHALL EVER PRAY :

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Acknowledgement Receipt

5. Manager of Standard Chartered Bank to produce necessary

documents.


Court.


15/53

16.03.2005

BY REGD. A.D.

UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING.

To,

1) Kalyani Exports, 2) Mr. Premalaksha R.Padubidri

41, Ujagar Estate, Partner of kalyani Exports.

Sub-Plot 2D,W.T.Patil Marg, 12,Arinda Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd.

Deonar, Mumbai : 400 088. Sector 10,Juhu Nagar,Vashi.

Navi Mumbai : 400 705.

3) Mr. Kamalaksha R. Padubidri. 4) Mr. Uday R. Yermal.

Partner.of Kalyani Exports. Partner of Kalyani Exports.6,Avanti Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd, 6, Madhugiri Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.

Deonar Baug, Deonar, Sion Trombay Road,

Mumbai : 400 088. Chembur, Mumbai : 400 071.

5) Mrs. Kalyani R. Thingalaya. 6) Mrs. Sandra P. Padubidri

Partner of Kalyani Exports. Partners of Kalyani Exports.

6, Madhugiri Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. 12, Arinda Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd

Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Sector 10, Juhu Nagar,

Mumbai : 400 071. Vashi Navi Mumbai : 400 705.

Sir,

On behalf of our clients M/s. Global Trade Finance Private Limited,

having their registered office situated at, Metropolitan Building, 6

th

floor,Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai : 400 051, Who have

instructed me to address you as under :-

1. You are aware that Export Factoring and purchase order facility has

been granted to you by my clients. The outstanding of which is standing as

on March 2004 to the tune of Rs. 9,25,00,000/-

2. I further say that in discharge of your liability towards the abovesaid

purchase order facility you have issued us cheques bearing Nos. 1) 848573

and 2) 848574 both dated 03.03.2005 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and for Rs.1,25,00,000/- aggregating to Rs. 2,25,00,000/- drawn on The Federal Bank

Ltd, Chembur Branch, as a part payment in favour of my clients duly signed

by you No.2 & 3, on behalf of you No.1 as a Partners.

3. I say that our clients have deposited above cheques issued by you for

encashment with their Bankers Viz. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd, Worli Branch,

however the said cheques were returned unpaid and dishonoured by your

Bankers with remark Funds Insufficient We have received the said

returned cheques and Memo through our Bankers with their Memo dated09.03.2005. On 12.03.2005.


16/53

4. You are aware that under the amended provisions i.e. section 138 to

141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dishonour of cheque is a

criminal Offence, Therefore, you No.2 to 6, being the Partners of M/s.

Kalyani Exports, all are liable to be prosecuted for having committed a

criminal offence in the event of failure on your part to comply with the

requisition contained in this statutory notice.

Under this circumstances, I hereby call upon and demand from, you

to make the payment of the said amount of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Carores Twenty five lakhs Only) being the amount of dishonoured cheques

referred above within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by you,

failing which my clients shall constrained to file a Criminal Complaint in the

competent Magistrates court without any further notice to you. Needless to

mention that such prosecution/action shall be entirely at your risk as to costsand consequences thereof.

Yours fiathfully,

(Sujit S.Jagtap)

Advocate.


17/53



C. C. NO./ / S-S /2006

GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD.

THROUGH

Shri Tapabrata Moitra,




V/s.

1. M/s. Alka International

Ltd.

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

2. Mr. Santosh Kumar

Jain

Managing Director

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

3. Mr. Vivek Jain

Director

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

4. Mr. Amit Jain

Director

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

5. Mr. Paras Kumar Jain

Director

19/37, Jainpuri,Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

6. Smt. Poonam Jain

Director

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.

7. Vinod Bala Jain

Director

19/37, Jainpuri,

Aligarh,

UTTAR PRADESH.


18/53

...Accused

..2


19/53

:: 2 ::



CLAIM FOR Rs. 1,00 ,00,000/-


I, Shri Tapabrata Moitra, Manager Legal of M/s Global

Trade Finance Ltd., having its registered office situated at,

Metropolitan Building, 6th floor, Bandra - Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, do hereby state on solemn

affirmation as under: -

1. I say that the Complainant Company has been converted

from Pvt. Ltd. into Limited under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956 and consequently thereto the name of

the Complainant Company has been changed from Global

Trade Finance Pvt. Ltd. to Global Trade Finance Ltd. with

effect from 06/12/2005 and the certificate of incorporation

has been issued by the Registrar of Companies for the same.





Rs.3,44,00,000/-.





for sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as a part payment duly signed

by accused no.2 on behalf of accused no.1. I say that being

.. 3


20/53

:: 3 ::

a Manager Legal of the complainant company who has duly

authorized me to file this the present complaint and as such I

am familiar and conversant with the facts of the case. Board

resolution dtd. 24.01.2006 is annexed herewith.


accused No. 2 to accused No. 7 are the directors and accused

No.2 is Managing Director and authorized signatory of

accused No. 1. At all material time relevant and relating to

the complaint Accused No. 2 to 7 were and are in charge of

and responsible for the conduct of business of Accused No.1

and are also looking after day to day affairs of Accused

No.1. It is further submitted that Accused No.2 to 7 with

Accused No.1 are liable to be prosecuted and / or connived

in the commission of the present offence, in their capacity as

a M. D., directors and signatory of the said limited company.





Bankers with remark Insufficient Fund. We have



6. I say that as narrated in Para 1 accused No. 2 to 7 being

responsible for the affairs of Accused No.1 i.e.. limitedcompany are liable to be prosecuted for having committed a



notice dtd. 09.12.2005, which sent to them both under

R.P.A.D. & U.P.C. on 12.12.2005. However till 13.01.2006

we have neither received acknowledgements nor returned

..4


21/53

:: 4 ::

notices, we have therefore informed the said fact to the

postal authorities vide our advocates letter dated 13.01.2006

regarding the non receipt of the acknowledgement. I say that

notice was also send through U.P.C. on the said address

which is presumed to be received by all accused. Thus

accused have failed and neglected to make our payment

under the above said dishonoured cheque.



(as amended).




complaint.





10.Under this circumstances it is prayed that this Honble




It is further prayed that if penalty is imposed on convictionthe same may be refunded to the complainant.

And for this act of kindness the complainant shall ever

pray.

MUMBAI :

Dated this 27th day of January 2006. COMPLAINANT

..5


22/53

:: 5 ::



2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Postal Slips

5. Letter to Post-office


documents.


Court.


23/53



C. C. NO./ / S-S /2006


THROUGH

Shri Anirudh Singh, Girijashankar Singh Thakur,




V/s.

1. M/s. Alka Locks Pvt. Ltd.

19/37, Jainpuri, Agra Road, Aligarh

UTTAR PRADESH

2. Santosh Kumar Jain.

3. Poonam Jain

4. Veena Jain

5. Sudha Jain

i) 19/37, Jainpuri, Agra Road, Aligarh

UTTAR PRADESH

ii) 29, Naiwala, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi.

6 Amit Jain.

19/37, Jainpuri, Agra Road, Aligarh

UTTAR PRADESH

. ..Accused



CLAIM FOR Rs. 40 ,00,000/-

..2


24/53

:: 2 ::


I, Shri Anirudh Singh Girijashanka Singh Thakur, Chief

Manager Legal & Company Secretary having its registered

office situated at, Metropolitan Building, 6th floor, Bandra -

Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, do herby

stat on solemn affirmation as under. :-





Rs.1,56,00,000/-.





for sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- as a part payment duly signed by

accused no.6 on behalf of accused no.1. I say that being a

Manager Legal & Company Secretary of the complainant

company who has duly authorized me to file this the present


facts of the case. Board resolution dtd. 30.09.2003 is

annexed herewith.


accused No. 2 to accused No. 6 are the M.D./directors and

accused no.6 is also authorized signatory of accused No. 1.

At all material time relevant and relating to the complaint



.. 3


25/53

:: 3 ::




commission of the present offence, in their capacity as a M.

D., directors and signatory of the said limited company.





Bankers with remark Exceeds Arrangement. We have









R.P.A.D. & U.P.C. on 12.12.2005 and 13.12.2005.

However till 13.01.2006 we have neither received

acknowledgements nor returned notices sent to accused on

their Aligarh address, we have therefore informed the said

fact to the postal authorities vide our advocates letter dated

13.01.2006 regarding the non receipt of the

acknowledgement. However notice sent to accused No.2 toNo.5 on their Delhi address came back by the postal

authorities with the remark dated 15.12.2005 Not Known.I

say that notice was also send through U.P.C. on both the

addresses which is presumed to be received by all accused.

Thus accused have failed and neglected to make our

payment under the above said dishonoured cheque.

..4


26/53

:: 4 ::



(as amended).




complaint.












MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT

..5


27/53

:: 5 ::



2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.




documents.


Court.


28/53


12TH COURT AT BANDRA, MUMBAI.

C.C. NO. / SS / 2006


Through Shri. Tapabrata Moitra, Manager Legal,



Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.

...Complainant

V/s.

1. M/s Anish Metals Pvt.Ltd. 5. Shri. Pankaj B. Shah

60, Kansara Chawl, Director

Kalbadevi Road, M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Mumbai 400 002. 60, Kansara Chawl,

Kalbadevi Road,

2. Shri. Pravinchandra N. Shah Mumbai 400 002.

Director of M/s Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd.

60, Kansara Chawl,

Kalbadevi Road,

Mumbai 400 002.

3. Shri. Sureshchandra N. Shah

Director of M/s Anish Metals Pvt.Ltd.

60, Kansara Chawl,

Kalbadevi Road,

Mumbai 400 002.

4. Shri. Kirti B. Shah

Director of M/s Anish Metals Pvt.Ltd.60, Kansara Chawl,

Kalbadevi Road,

Mumbai 400 002.

Accused

CHARGES : U/s. 138 r/w 141 of


CLAIM FOR Rs. 2,10,28,309/-


I, Shri. Tapabrata Moitra, Manager Legal, having

its registered office situated at, Metropolitan Building, 6 th

floor,


29/53

:: 2 ::

Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051,

do herby state on solemn affirmation as under.:-


accused No. 1 have approached us with request for trade


granted by us to the accused.



issued us a cheques bearing Nos. 176457, 176458, 176456,

and 176459 all dated 07/02/2006 for Rs. 49,12,005/-,

50,23,137/-, 51,78,663/-, and 49,14,504/- respectively

drawn on The HDFC BANK, FORT, MUMBAI Branch as

a part payment in favour of my clients duly signed by you

No. 4 on behalf of you No.1. I say that being a Manager

Legal of the complainant company who has duly authorized

me to file this present complaint and as such I am familiar

and conversant with the facts of the case. The Board

resolution dtd. 24/01/2006 is annexed herewith.

3. I say that on instructions of accused we have deposited

above cheques issued by accused for encashment with their

Bankers Viz. UTI Bank Ltd, B.K.C. Branch, on 28/02/2006,

however the said cheques were returned unpaid and

dishonoured by accused Bankers with remark Effect not

Cleared, Please Present Again and hence again accused

have requested us to present the above referred cheques in

the month of April 2006 however on presentation the said

cheques were again returned unpaid and dishonoured by

accused Bankers with remark Effect not Cleared, Please

Present Again, Effect not Cleared, Please Present Again,

Funds Insufficients, and Funds Insuficient


30/53

:: 3 ::

respectively. We have received the said returned cheques

and Memos through our Bankers with their Bankers Memo

on 04/04/2006.


accused No. 2 to accused No. 5 are the directors and

accused No.4 is authorized signatory of accused No. 1. At

all material time relevant and relating to the complaint






commission of the present offence, in their capacity as a

directors and accused No.4 is signatory of the said limited

company.







R.P.A.D. & U.P.C. on 28/04/06. I say that notice was duly

received by accused No.1 ,3 and 4 on 02/05/06 and notice

sent to accused No.2 & 5 were came back by postal

authorities with the remark Not Claimed. Thus accusedhave failed and neglected to make our payment under the

above said dishonoured cheques.



(as amended).


31/53

:: 4 ::




complaint.









It is further prayed that if penalty is imposed on

conviction the same may be refunded to the complainant.


pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memo.

3. Demand Notice.


32/53

:: 5 ::




documents.


Court.


33/53



C.C. NO. / SS / 2006






...Complainant

Versus

1. M/S. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Adinath Towers, A,

2nd Floor, Nancy Colony,

Borivali (E), Mumbai 400 066.

2. Mr. Satish P. Bhat.

Chairman-cum-M.D.of M/s. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Adinath Towers, A,



3. Mr. V. R. Nayak

Vice Chairman of M/s. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Adinath Towers, A,



Accused



CLAIM FOR Rs. 6,17,910/-




floor, Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai

400 051, do herby state on solemn affirmation as under.:-

1. I say that the accused No. 2 & 3, on behalf of accused No. 1

2


34/53

:: 2 ::

have approached us with request for trade finance

facility and accordingly said facility has been

granted by us to the accused as per their request and

requirement.

2. That in discharge of said liability towards repayment of the

abovesaid trade finance facility due and payable to us

accused had issued us a cheques bearing Nos. 153170 and

153231 both dated 11/08/2006 for Rs.3,10,395/- and

Rs.3,07,515- respectively drawn on Saraswat Co-Op. Bank

Ltd., Boriwali (W) Branch as a part payment in favour of

complainant duly signed by you No. 3 on behalf of you

No.1. I say that being a Manager Legal of the complainant

company who has duly authorized me to file this present


facts of the case. The Board resolution dtd. 24/01/2006 is

annexed herewith.



Bankers Viz. UTI Bank Ltd, B.K.C. Branch, however both

the cheques were returned unpaid and dishonoured by

accused Bankers with remark Funds Insufficient. We have

received the said returned cheques and Memos through our

Bankers with their Bankers Memo on 12/08/2006.

4. I say that Accused No. 1 is private limited company of

which accused No. 2 is chairman-cum-M.D. and accused

No.3 is the Vice-Chairman and also authorized signatory of


the complaint Accused No. 2 & 3 were and are in charge of


3


35/53

:: 3 ::


No.1. It is further submitted that Accused No.2 &

3 with

Accused No.1 are liable to be prosecuted and / or

connived in the commission of the present offence,

in their capacity as a Chairman-cum-M.D. and Vice-

Chairman/signatory of the said private

limited company.


responsible for the affairs of Accused No.1 i.e. private

limited company are liable to be prosecuted for having

committed a criminal offence in the event of failure on their

part to comply with the requisitions contained in the

statutory notice dtd. 09/09/06, which sent to them both under


received by all the accused on 11/09/06. Thus accused have

failed and neglected to make our payment under the above

said dishonoured cheques.



(as amended).



court is competent to entertain and try this presentcomplaint.






36/53

4

:: 4 ::








pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memos.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Postal Receipts.

5. Acknowledgements.


documents.



37/53

Court.



C.C. NO. / SS / 2006




6th floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.

...Complainant

Versus


Adinath Towers, A,





Adinath Towers, A,



3. Mr. V. R. Nayak


Adinath Towers, A,

2nd Floor, Nancy Colony,Borivali (E), Mumbai 400 066.

Accused


Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.CLAIM FOR Rs. 56,55,009/-







38/53


2

:: 2 ::




requirement.



accused had issued us a cheques bearing Nos. 153151,

153229, 153230 and 153152 dated 13/08/2006, 12/08/2006,

13/08/2006 and 14/08/2006 for Rs.35,38,125/-, 3,07,515/-,

5,15,619 and 12,93,750/- respectively aggregating to

Rs.56,55,009/- drawn on Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,

Boriwali (W) Branch as a part payment in favour of






annexed herewith.












39/53




3

:: 3 ::



3 with





limited company.













(as amended).




complaint.



40/53




4

:: 4 ::








pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memos.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Postal Receipts.



41/53


documents.


Court.



C.C. NO. / SS / 2006






...Complainant

Versus


Adinath Towers, A,





Adinath Towers, A,



3. Mr. V. R. Nayak


Adinath Towers, A,



Accused



CLAIM FOR Rs.10,70,072/-


42/53







2

:: 2 ::




requirement.




153173 and 153172 dated 20/08/2006, 20/08/2006 and

19/08/2006 for Rs.4,53,122/-, 3,07,319/- and 3,09,631/-

respectively aggregating to Rs.10,70,072/- drawn on

Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Boriwali (W) Branch as a part

payment in favour of complainant duly signed by you No. 3

on behalf of you No.1. I say that being a Manager Legal of

the complainant company who has duly authorized me to

file this present complaint and as such I am familiar and

conversant with the facts of the case. The Board resolution

dtd. 24/01/2006 is annexed herewith.









43/53







3

:: 3 ::



3 with





limited company.









failed and neglected to make our payment under the abovesaid dishonoured cheques.



(as amended).


44/53




complaint.





4

:: 4 ::








pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memos.

3. Demand Notice.


45/53

4. Postal Receipts.



documents.


Court.



C.C. NO. / SS / 2006






...Complainant

Versus


Adinath Towers, A,2nd Floor, Nancy Colony,




Adinath Towers, A,



3. Mr. V. R. Nayak


Adinath Towers, A,



Accused


46/53










2

:: 2 ::




requirement.




164566, 164291 and 164454 dated 24/08/2006, 27/08/2006,

29/08/2006 and 30/08/2006 for Rs.2,83,800/- 4,33,591,

5,26,363/- and 3,17,875/- respectively aggregating to

Rs.15,61,619/- drawn on Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,

Boriwali (W) Branch as a part payment in favour of






annexed herewith.





47/53




Bankers with their Bankers Memo on 25/08/2006,

29/08/2006, 30/08/2006 and 31/08/2006 respectively.







3

:: 3 ::



3 with





limited company.





part to comply with the requisitions contained in thestatutory notice dtd.13/09/06, which sent to them both under






48/53



(as amended).




complaint.





4

:: 4 ::








pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :

COMPLAINANT




49/53

2. Bank Memos.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Postal Receipts.



documents.


Court.



C.C. NO. / SS / 2006




6th floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.

...Complainant

Versus


Adinath Towers, A,





Adinath Towers, A,



3. Mr. V. R. Nayak


Adinath Towers, A,



50/53


Accused










2

:: 2 ::




requirement.




153325, 153126, 153226, 153316, 153171 all dated

15/08/2006 and Cheque No.153154 dated 16/08/2006 for

Rs.20,75,625/-, 7,54,381/-, 4,61,493/-, 4,60,935/-,

3,85,497/-, 3,09,631/- and 18,33,750/- respectively

aggregating to Rs.62,81,312/- drawn on Saraswat Co-Op.

Bank Ltd., Boriwali (W) Branch as a part payment in favour

of complainant duly signed by you No. 3 on behalf of you





51/53


annexed herewith.














3

:: 3 ::



3 with





limited company.






statutory notice dtd.13/09/06, which sent to them both under



52/53






(as amended).




complaint.





4

:: 4 ::








pray.

MUMBAI :

DATED :


53/53

COMPLAINANT



2. Bank Memos.

3. Demand Notice.

4. Postal Receipts.



documents.


Court.

Global Trade Finance Pvt.ltd.-Sk

Documents

Transcript of Global Trade Finance Pvt.ltd.-Sk