Rakesh Bhikhalal Shah And ORS v. Umesh Chadha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2920-2025 Date of decision: 04.11.2025 RAKESH BHIKHALAL SHAH AND ORS .... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UMESH CHADHA ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) On 28.01.2025, the following was passed:- "Counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that at the relevant time when cheque in question dated 29.03.2023 was issued, the petitioners were not directors of accused no.1 M/s Nava Health Care Private Limited. The petitioners were later on inducted as directors of the aforesaid company in the month of September 2023, as is clear from Annexure P-5. Further, the petitioners were not incharge of and were not responsible to the aforesaid company for the conduct of its business. It is further submitted that petitioners are not signatory to the cheque in dispute and further the said cheque was not issued from the bank account of the petitioners. In the given circumstances, the petitioners cannot be vicariously held liable under Section 141 NI Act.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and has filed power of attorney and inter alia submits that even at the time of issuances of cheque in question, the petitioners were directors of M/s KUSUM 2025.11.07 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-2920-2025 -2Nava Health Care Private Limited and that vide Annexure P-5, there was only change in their designation. He prays for time to file detailed reply and further submits that respondent is ready and willing to settled his dispute in an amicable manner with the petitioners and other accused persons.

Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to seek necessary instructions in this regard.

Needful be done by the next date of hearing.

Now be listed on 21.03.2025.

In case, the petitioners appears before the trial Court within next 15 days then they are directed to be released on interim bail by the said Court to its on satisfaction till the next date fixed in the present petition."

2.

A request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for an adjournment.

3.

On being questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not know as to whether the aforementioned order has been complied with. It appears that an adjournment is being sought as the petitioners have not appeared before the Court. 4.

In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. 5.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 04.11.2025 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2025.11.07 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh