Justice P S Teji refused to quash the summons issued to Mallya and said the trial court order cannot be termed as unsustainable or illegal
In total, the Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) has instituted four cases against Mallya under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in relation to cheques issued in by KFA to DIAL amounting to Rs 7.5 crore, which were subsequently dishonoured by Kingfisherâs bank.
Mallya’s lawyers has made submissions on an earlier date praying for quashing of the trial court summons on the premise that KFA had a full time chief executive officer at the time and as such Mallya was not involved in the day to day functioning of the airline.
Negating the submissions, the court concluded that the trial could order could not be termed as unsustainable or illegal as no ground was made out to set aside the same, as was alleged by Mallya’s counsels.
There was no need to issue notice by the complainant in his (Mallya’s) name. It is not in dispute that the cheques in question were issued by the said company and he (Mallya) being its chairman and managing director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company. The bench of judge P S Tegi said while upholding the trial court order and directed proceedings to continue in the manner prescribed by law.
The Delhi high court refused to entertain liquor-barron Vijay Mallya’s plea against summons issued by a trial court in relation to a cheque bouncing case against him on Friday.
The order of the trial court was passed in relation to a cheque worth Rs 1 crore issued by Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) on 22 February 2012, which bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
The order of the trial court was passed in relation to a cheque worth Rs 1 crore issued by Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) on 22 February 2012, which bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
In total, the Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) has instituted four cases against Mallya under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in relation to cheques issued in by KFA to DIAL amounting to Rs 7.5 crore, which were subsequently dishonoured by Kingfisherâs bank.
Mallya’s lawyers has made submissions on an earlier date praying for quashing of the trial court summons on the premise that KFA had a full time chief executive officer at the time and as such Mallya was not involved in the day to day functioning of the airline.
Negating the submissions, the court concluded that the trial could order could not be termed as unsustainable or illegal as no ground was made out to set aside the same, as was alleged by Mallya’s counsels.
There was no need to issue notice by the complainant in his (Mallya’s) name. It is not in dispute that the cheques in question were issued by the said company and he (Mallya) being its chairman and managing director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company. The bench of judge P S Tegi said while upholding the trial court order and directed proceedings to continue in the manner prescribed by law.
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon