Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 3, 2024 taken a serious view of disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal and financial obligations by chairman and vice chairman of a company and ordered them to surrender for their failure to pay back the amount as per their undertakings in a cheque dishonour case.

 

The top court dismissed their plea the Bombay High Court's order cancelling their bail and suspension of sentence.

 

"The facts of this case bring to light a situation marked by a persistent disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal and financial obligations. The behaviour of the Petitioner stands as a testament as to how an individual's nonchalant attitude towards financial responsibilities and court orders can undermine the essense of judicial efficacy," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal said.

 

The court directed appellant Satish P Bhatt and another person to pay Rs 5 lakh as cost, to be paid to the complainant, and surrender within a period of four weeks to undergo the sentence.

 

It asked the High Court to deal with their revision petition and ensure that they complied with their undertakings.

 

The court also asked the High Court to ensure that the complainant was suitably compensated for the further harassment.

 

The appellant Bhatt and the intervenor Vishwanath Ramakrishna Nayak were Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Vice Chairman of a company by the name of M/s Astral Glass Private Limited. They were convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three separate cases and sentenced with 10 months with total liability of Rs 5 Cr.

 

Before the High Court, the appellant and the intervenor filed an undertaking based on a settlement on July 03, 2018 according to which it was agreed that a total sum of Rs 4,63,50,000 would be paid to the complainant. The HC provided them protection after recording the payment schedule.

 

The appellant claimed he had paid his 50% share of the balance amount while intervenor said the partnership between him and the appellant was in the ratio of 60:40 and that they had actually agreed to pay the settled amount of Rs 4,63,50,000 in that proportion as per their shares in the firm.

 

The intervenor alleged that the appellant has mischievously and fraudulently altered the words “as per the respective shares” by substituting it with “equally” in undertaking. He also claimed he had paid back his share.

 

The complainant, on his part, said as of date there is still an outstanding amount of Rs 83,10,000.

 

The bench, however, said, "We are not inclined to go into this question as to who is to pay how much amount. The fact remains that the total amount agreed to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High Court dated 20.03.2019 the revisionists being in default in payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn without reference to the Court. We find no infirmity in the impugned order."

 

The bench pointed out that there was a protection by this court on August 26, 2019 regarding stay of arrest, as a result of which the appellant and the intervenor have still not undergone the sentence. On the other hand, the complainant has still not reaped not only the fruits of the order of July 03, 2018 but also of the order of the Trial Court of August 26, 2011.

 

"The complainant has agreed to receive a much lesser amount than he was entitled to under the order of the trial court. He has been litigating since 2007 almost 16 years by now. We, accordingly, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5 lakhs," the bench said.

Cause Title: Satish P Bhatt Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr