Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Harsh Sehgal Vs State & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CRL.M.C. 702/2022 and CRL.M.A.2998/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/05/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Harsh Sehgal Vs State & Anr (Delhi High Court)

Facts- The complainant/respondent no. 2, Galaxy Datamatics Pvt. Ltd., averred that the accused no. 1, M/S Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd., earlier known as M/s Blues Clothing Pvt. Ltd., accused no. 2, Dinesh Sehgal and accused no. 3, Harsh Sehgal, approached the respondent no.2 for a short-term loan of Rs. 5 Crores for meeting short fall in cash flow and for immediate project requirements for implementation of various contracts.

A short-term loan agreement was entered into by the parties and respondent no. 2 advanced the loan of Rs. 5 Crores to the accused for a period of three months at interest of 24% per annum. It was stated that the parties also agreed for execution of an irrevocable and unconditional personal guarantee of the accused no. 2 and 3, jointly and severally. It was further agreed that the accused were to pay a penal interest of 3% per month in case of default of repayment.

For repayment of the said loan the accused issued a cheque for the amount of Rs. 5 Crores bearing no. 017257 dated 10th September, 2011 drawn on Union Bank of India and when presented the cheque was returned dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” vide memo dated 29th December, 2011. Statutory Notice dated 2nd January, 2012 was sent by respondent no. 2 to the accused and a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter “NI Act”) was filed by respondent no. 2 against the accused thereafter.

During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 148 of the NI Act, which was strongly opposed on behalf of the accused for not being maintainable. Vide order dated 5th February, 2022, the learned ASJ directed the accused to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount to be deposited in the form of FDR in the favour of the complainant failing which the condition of suspension of sentence dated 5th April, 2018 would stand vacated.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031