Ex. C & C-1

1.         

2.         

3.         

4.         

5.         

6.         

7.         

1.       

2.       

3.       

4.       

5.       

6.       

7.       

8.      The Complainant received the intimation about the dishonour of the cheque from their banker on 1.11.2006.

9.      As the said cheque was dishonoured the Complainant issued the statutory notice dated 15.11.2006 through its advocates Dave & Girish & Co. to Accused Nos.1 and 2 calling upon them to make payment of the dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs.9,79,70,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.  Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit D is the copy of the statutory notice dated 15.11.2006.

Ex. D

1.      

2.      

3.      

4.      

5.      

6.      

7.      

8.      

9.      

10.     The Complainant states that the said notice was sent to the Accused Nos.1 and 2 by registered A/D post and Under Certificate of Posting on 15.11.2006.  Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit E collectively are the copies of the postal receipts of Registered A/D post and Under Certificate of Posting.

Ex. F

11.     The Accused Nos.1 and 2 received the notice dated 15.11.2006 on 16.11.2006. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit F are the postal acknowledgement receipts which were duly acknowledged by the Accused on 16.11.2006.

Ex. G

12.     Although the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have received the notice dated 15.11.2006 they have failed to make the entire payment to the Complainant which the Accused is liable to make within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Accused No.1 addressed a letter dated 1.12.2006, with a post-dated cheque for Rs.7,29,70,000/- (Rupees seven crores twenty-nine lakhs and seventy thousand) enclosed, purportedly in reply to the Complainants notice dated 15.11.2006 in which it was falsely contended, inter alia, that the Complainants notice is premature, that the payment was in full settlement of the Accuseds liability towards the Complainant, that certain further payments were made to the Complainant in respect of the amount of the dishonoured cheque. The Complainant says and submits that the issuance of a fresh post-dated cheque for a reduced amount in no way constitutes compliance with the Complainants notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also says and submits that the so-called defense taken by the Accused in their reply dated 1.12.2006 is false and irrelevant and is also a means to stall for time. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit G is a copy of the letter dated 1.12.2006 sent by the Accused No.1. The Complainant adds that though the said notice makes mention of a pay order of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) given to Mr. Om Navani and Mr. Ashok Advani, no copy of such pay order was enclosed in the said letter thus demonstrating the dishonesty of the Accused. In fact all the annexures mentioned in the letter are missing except the cheque dated 21.12.2006 bearing no. 184265 for Rs. 7,29,70,000/-.

Ex. G

13.     The complainants cause of action arose on 1.12.2006 i.e. 15 days from the receipt of the notice dated 15.11.2006.

14.     The cheque was issued by the Accused in favour of the Complainant towards the part discharge of the liability of THPL towards the Complainant under the MOU and since the Accused No.2 is the authorized signatory of the cheque in question and is responsible for the day to day affairs of the business of Accused No.1 and hence is responsible for the said payment due to the Complainant.  The cheque was issued by Accused No. 2, on behalf of THPL, from the account maintained by the Accused No.1 with its banker for the payment of the amount to the Complainant in part discharge of the liability of THPL and since the cheque was dishonoured for the reasons stated hereinabove the Accused have committed an offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended.  The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are thus liable to be prosecuted for the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended.

15.     The complaint has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended, i.e. within one month from the date on which the cause of action arose.

16.     The Complainant has appended a list witnesses that it proposes to examine to prove its case and also craves leave to refer to and rely upon the documents mentioned in the complaint.

17.     The Complainant states that the Complainants bank as well as the Accused No. 1s bank are situated within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and therefore this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the above complaint.