R Kumar vs M/S Cam Max Engineering on 24 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER--f_ZQ~:i__(_5 ' 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTiGE  *   'A 

CRL. A NO;_Ejg1_2/QOAQ-G4'

CRLANOS943 O94V6/2OO._4'' }

RKUMAR    u   
S/O  " A
AGED ABOUT V-'éE6«1XEARSV._"* ~  
R/AT N0. 2'9,/,A;., 11(:RDSS_" 
K1RL0S._KA-.R COLONK H,S'TA'GE
WEST OF c4H0ED*R'oAD_,E'ST 
EANGA1,oREN'---_5600"z9S-- 
  V    ...APPELLANT
(common)

[BY ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

 '~[_'M/'S'CAM MAX ENGINEERING
'A 1'  ;;_4A~, SYTESWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
  " PEENYA :1 STAGE, VISHVANEEDAM POST
 -BANGALORE -91

" LOGANATHAN

MANAGING PARTNER
CAM MAX ENGINEERING
1 --A, BYTESWARA INDUSTREAL ESTATE



were initiated against accused alleging an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.l. Act._4v»..V_:"Tl:':l1e

learned trial Judge has acquitted the accusedtinéi .

above cases. Therefore, the co1n.plai,nant'.is" this it"

COUIT.

2. In these appeals,  are"  The
cheques which were  to cornvplainant
were in respectof to have been
entered   on
2.10.99,  accused so also the
defence' -. complainant is cornrnon.

Therefore';   axifoidlrepetition and overlapping of

 M facts, these  together taken for disposal by

'V ' this. judgment.

A  3v__;'i' learned counsel for complainant as also the

it   learned» counsel for accused are absent.

4. In View of the judgment of the Supreme Court

reported in 2008 AIR SCW 357. I have perused the

records and taken up these appeals for dis posal on

 
 

merits.  

 at 



__. 4-} 
5. On consideration of the averments made in the

complaint, the evidence adduced by complainantand

accused, I find, by and large, the facts are 

dispute. The disputed facts lie in a narrow':icovinpasslhe V'

Therefore, it is 1'1€C€SS8I'y to state-'admitted 

are as follows.

6. The complainant  his" faxnilyg rr1ei1*ib'ers
constituted a partnership firm ovifned  small

scale industry under   Cam Max

 or A. "scale industrial unit),
situate    Industrial Estate, Peenya

El Stage,  Post, Bangalore. The

..pphadlVhj'rpothecated the machinery of the

llplantl  "   M / s Shyamrao Vittal Co--operatiVe

._  Bani~:__ and 'raised a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

T 7';f"oN 2.10.1999, complainant and second

 jaeu--seud[M.Loganathan) entered into an agreement of

  sale whereby the complainant agreed to sell Cam Max

" Engineering in favour of accused for total consideration

Rs.25,00,000/- which included the liability of

J-\?'  I/K-fi3"«1/'\«&;(. I



8

the foiiowing documents to substantiate their

contentions.

12. In the notice dated 5.3.2009 at Ex.D4,"i'ssiLie:éiv.y4

by the office of the Asst. Commissioner of  9'

Taxes, Sirsi Circie, Bangalore, it:-is"'show;'rA1 for 'thex'=
assessment year 1997-98, My/s Cam Max x. -A"}iab1e_ to '

Ha 'I
L»,

pay sales tax and surcharge :' 
of EX.D8, which is a letter d"ate'd-.9141211212000'"addressed

by M /s Shamrao Vittal  Cam Max.

the complainant««y:._a'vaiiedg 1earfefi"--.Re;i1S.00,oo0/-- by

hypothecat./ionyivioffp:ian't'»_and' machinery and has also

availed biiitycliscoigntingifaciiity of Rs.1,00,000/~. The

  has pro'daVce_§i':outstanding liability of M/s Cam

 E1:g_i11eeri'ng which had accrued before 1.4.99 . in

te1*ms.7of'E;:.IA)i4, Cam Max was due in a sum of

.4 to M/s Engineering Enterprises. In terms

9' 'EX.i.«Di5, M/s Cam Max was due in a sum of

»~ to 34/5 Zylincirotek Systems. In terms of

 M/S Cam Max was due in a sum of

Rs.19,357/-- to NUS Metreat Products. In terms of

Ex.D17, M/s Cam Max was due in a sum of Rs.19477/--

»

5&3 '  L :9» 'L  '



to Industrial Enterprises. In terms of Ex.D18, M / s Cam

Max was due in a sum of Rs.15.112/-- to M/s Qanara

Fasteners. In terms of Ex.DI9, M/S Can  _

in a sum of Rs.12,120/- to M/s AvasaraiaAititrofnationv;I  

Limited. In terms of EXD20, M Can_.IMaX.'wasIIdii-e__ in_a_AI

a sum of Rs. 1,07 ,O00/ -- to   
In terms of Ex.D21, M[s  was  agisum of
Rs.3,900/w to NUS iiittggrattgcte' J.Pr'ecIision Tool Room
Pvt.Ltd. In termsof   was due in

a sum of  ._M/sf vfdfiearhead Marketing

Services. IIII "Int  Can Max was due in
a sum of  otto Biizflndia} Pvt. Ltd.

In terms of   Max was due in a sum of

 "Rs.7I;---5OO')'-- toéA.B.I'I3ngineering works. These liabilities

 1.

4.1999. These liabilities should

have-..__beenIuoiischarged by the complainant. The

I.”I”-..Icomp1ain:-:int in his evidence has admitted that on

he had received a DD. for Rs.3,00,000/– from

accused No.2 Loganathan. He has admitted i” : apart

P

I from this transaction, there were no other transactions

between the accused and complainant.

12

complainant. The compiainant without performing his

obiigations contained in the agreement cannot_””»be

permitted to contend that second accused A’

honour the cheques issued by him. T”

presumption that is available iifiol

compiainant under Section of
Act is rebutted by evidence
and also by evidence H H

The learned vtriaii, Au-‘ ?ii3preciation of
the evidencei, /2000,
31499/a0ocTT¥gsi5ii22ooo, 31512/2000 &

31513/ _In Cifeumstances, I do not find any

_ grounds to interfefe with the impugned judgment.

» _Ac.cordingIy, appeais are dismissed.

sal-

judge

Yn.