IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11480 OF 2019 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
SRI ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY MANAGING DIRECTOR A.K.R.CONSTRUCTION LTD., OFFICE PLOT NO.8-2-684/J3 BHAVANI NAGAR COLONY KANAKADURGA TEMPLE LANE ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD - 560034 (BY SHRI. AJAY PRABHU M FOR SHRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATES) …PETITIONER AND:
M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI STEEL HOUSE A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.C.ROAD BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MRS.SHOBHA S.PRABHU W/O. M.SHRINATH PRABHU AGE: MAJOR R/AT. ROOM NO.504, 5TH FLOOR AMBAR CITADEL, SULTHAN BATHERY ROAD URVA MARKET, MANGALORE – 575 001 … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.356/2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC (V COURT) MANGALORE D.K., AS PER ANNEXURE-A, IN SOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Ajay Prabhu M for Shri Sachin B.S., learned Advocates for petitioner.
2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in PCR No.356/2015 filed before the learned JMFC (V Court), Mangalore, D.K., by the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The solitary ground urged by Shri Ajay Prabhu M, learned advocate for the petitioner is that accused has not been properly described in the complaint and therefore, complaint is not maintainable insofar as petitioner is concerned.
4. Averments in the complaint disclose that complainant rendered services to the accused company, M/s. A.K.R. Construction company. Accused has issued cheques towards the services rendered and supplies made by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner/accused No.1 has not been properly described. It is stated that cheques have been signed by the Authorized Signatory being the director of A.K.R. Construction Company.
The description in the complaint that petitioner is a director of company is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner.
Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ