Surinder Kumar Batra & Anr vs Daffodills India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Surinder Kumar Batra & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Daffodills India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amiket Jain, Advocate.

ORDER

22.10.2019 The appellants/petitioners preferred application under

Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging acts of oppression

and mismanagement on the part of the respondents. The Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, by impugned

order dated 7th August, 2019 rejected the application being devoid of merit and

made following observations: -

Having signed the cheques and mandating the

transfer was an act done by the petitioners. The

allegations of siphoning are therefore unfounded. The

photo copies of the cheques in respect of the "Siphoned

amounts" have been annexed by the respondent to the

reply. These cheques correspond to the entries in the

Bank Statements of the respondent company. The

cheques were signed by petitioner no. 2 himself. The

signatures are not denied. Under such circumstances the allegation of siphoning off of the funds falls flat on its

face. No case of oppression or mismanagement can be

made out. The petitioner's defence that it is a case of pre

signed cheques being misused by respondent no. 2 has

no legs to stand upon. The fact that the respondent no. 2

has chosen to use the money in priority to regularisation

of a bank liability, is a business decision which cannot

be questioned by this Bench. There are allegation of

misappropriation of funds made by the Respondent No.

2 against the petitioners which however, is not a subject

matter of adjudication before this Bench.

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that money was siphoned

and transferred to himself by 2nd Respondent surreptitiously using blank

cheques signed by 2nd Appellant. Further, the money transferred to 2nd

Respondent was not used for the benefit of the 1st Respondent, but rather for

personal gain of 2nd Respondent.

However, we are not inclined to accept such submissions. Admittedly,

the appellants/petitioners had issued a pre-signed cheque in favour of 2nd

Respondent and handed over to the 2nd Respondent. Having done so now it

cannot be alleged in absence of any record that Respondent no. 2

misappropriated the cheque.

In fact, the appellants/petitioners should not have issued blank pre-sign

//2//Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2019 cheque which is against the provisions and which is not permissible by

'Negotiable Instruments Act'. He has committed violation of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not granting any relief. The appeal

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

R N/sk /

//3//Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2019