Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.

Cheque bounce case: Firm asked to pay Rs 30 lakh

Cheque bounce case: Firm asked to pay Rs 30 lakh

A private firm and its director have been directed by a Delhi court to pay Rs 30 lakh as compensation to another company for issuing three cheques totalling Rs 15 lakh which got dishonoured.

The sessions court dismissed the appeal of the firm and its director challenging a magisterial court’s order which had sentenced the individual to imprisonment till rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh to be given to the complainant company as compensation.

“The appeal is dismissed. The trial court by the impugned order on sentence…had imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh upon the appellants to be paid as compensation to the respondent/ complainant within one month of the said order. The said fine has not been deposited,” Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh said.

The court said if appellants — Haryana Auto Castings Ltd and its director Vinay Kumar Jain — failed to deposit the fine, the director shall surrender to serve the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

As per Delhi-based firm APD Investments Pvt Ltd, it was approached by Jain’s company with a representation to provide working capital of Rs 15 crore and the complainant paid Rs 15 lakh to it as commission in advance for the services.

Jain’s firm, however, failed to arrange the working capital and it was to return the advance amount of Rs 15 lakh, the complainant said, adding that Jain’s firm issued it three cheques for Rs 15 lakh in April 2005.

When the cheques were presented in the bank for encashment by the complainant, these were returned dishonoured with the remark ‘insufficent funds’ in April, 2005, the complaint said.

It said that on being informed about dishonour of the cheques, Jain’s company apologised and asked the complainant to present the cheques in bank after two months but these were again dishonoured with the remarks ‘cheque stopped’.

It said that when Jain’s company did not make the payment, the complainant filed a case against it.

During the trial, the firm and its director had denied the allegations levelled against them.

( Source – PTI )

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of