IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO._____________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Syngenta India Pvt Ltd.

Amar Paradigm,
Sr. No. 110/11/13,
Baner Road Pune,
Maharashtra-41105,
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Nikhil Nikam

Also at:
Unit number 405, 4th Floor,
D2, Southern Park,
District Centre Saket,
New Delhi – 110017
…Complainant
VERSUS

1. Mahashakti Krishi Kendra

Proprietorship through Mr. Manoj Pawar
Gph No. 288, Laxmi Takali Tal,
Pandharpur, District- Solapur- 413304
Maharashtra
Email: dattapawar7755@gmail.com
Contact No: 7755948617
 2. Mr. Lakshman Jalindar Pawar
Proprietor,
Gph No. 288, Laxmi Takali Tal,
Pandharpur, District- Solapur- 413304
Maharashtra
Contact No: 9665298617

3. Mr. Dattaray Abhimanyu Pawar,

Authorised Signatory
Gph No. 288, Laxmi Takali Tal,
Pandharpur, District- Solapur- 413304
Maharashtra
Contact No: 7755948617

…Accused(s)

P.S.________

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 READ WITH SECTION 141 AND

142 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AS AMENDED TILL
DATE READ WITH S.420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Complainant is a science-based aggrotech company that is dedicated

to assisting millions of farmers in India and around the globe in
cultivating wholesome and environmentally-friendly crops. The
Complainant operates in the sectors of seed production, insecticide and
pesticide manufacturing, and the marketing and distribution of related
 products, such as processed seeds and other agricultural chemicals
products.

2. The Accused No.1 being well aware of the reputation and goodwill of the
Complainant, approached the Complainant to be appointed as one of its
Distributors. The Complainant relying on the assurance and the trust
conveyed by the Accused No.1, appointed the Accused No.1 as one of its
Distributors vide distribution agreement dated 09.11.2021
(“Agreement”). Copy of Agreement is annexed hereto and is marked as
Annexure- A.

3. That pursuant to the appointment of the Accused No.1 as one of the

Distributors of the Complainant, the Complainant started providing its
products to the Accused No.1 on the basis of the orders placed by the
Accused No.1 and accordingly raised invoices for the same. It is
imperative to mention herein that payment in respect of the said invoices
has not been made by the Accused till date and there is a huge
outstanding liability on the part of the Accused persons towards the
Complainant. Copy of the ledger sheet evidencing the outstanding
amount is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- B.

4. Subsequently, in order to discharge a part of their liability, the Accused(s)

had issued the following cheques to the Complainant: -

S.No. Cheque No. Amount (INR) Date of Issue

1 000005 24,00,000 12.10.2023
2 000006 24,00,000 12.10.2023
 The above-mentioned Cheques were signed by Accused No.2 and were
issued by the Accused(s) from the Account of the Accused No.1
maintained with Bank of Baroda, Pandharpur, Solapur, Maharastra-
443304. True Copies of the above-mentioned cheques are annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-C (Colly).

5. That on 24.10.2023, the Complainant presented the above-mentioned

cheques bearing Nos. 000005 and 000006 for encashment before its bank
namely Citi Bank, DLF Capitol Point branch, Cannaught Place, New
Delhi- 110001. All the cheques issued by the Accused(s) were
returned/dishonoured by the bank with the noting/reason “Funds
Insufficient”. True Copies of the return memos of all the cheques are
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D (Colly)

6. That the Accused(s) were well aware of their liability to make payments
to the Complainant, however, the Accused(s) willfully issued the
aforesaid cheques for discharging their partial liability knowing that
sufficient fund was not available in the bank account to honour the
cheques. Therefore, it is evident that the Accused(s) is a “wilful
defaulter”. The Reserve Bank of India, in its master circular dated
01.07.2013 has defined wiflful defaulters to be the ones who have
defaulted in meeting the payment obligations despite having the capacity
to honour such obligations. The relevant portion from the said circular is
reproduced hereinbelow:

“2.1 Definition of wilful default

The term "wilful default" has been redefined in supersession of the

earlier definition as under:
 A "wilful default" would be deemed to have occurred if any of the
following events is noted: -
(a) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment / repayment
obligations to the lender even when it has the capacity to honour
the said obligations.
……………………………..”

In the instant case, it is apparent from the conduct of the Accused, that the
Accused has delayed payments with malafide and dishonest intentions in
order to evade its obligations towards the Complainant Company.

It is also relevant to mention herein that the RBI vide the said circular has
suggested to take stern criminal action under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
against such wilful defaulters in order to recover the debt amount. A copy
of the said Master Circular having Ref. No. RBI/2013-14/63 DBOD No.
CID.BC. 3 /20.16.003/2013-14 dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Reserve
Bank of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E.

7. As the aforesaid cheques amounting to INR 48,00,000/- (Indian Rupee

Forty-Eight Lakhs only) issued by the Accused(s) were dishonoured, the
Complainant was constrained to send a demand notice dated 03.11.2023
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the
Accused(s), informing the Accused Persons that the aforesaid cheques
issued by them were dishonoured and calling upon them to pay the
amounts mentioned in the said cheques. However, till date, neither any
response has been received to the aforesaid Notice from any of the
accused persons nor the amount of INR 48,00,000/- (Indian Rupee Forty-
Eight Lakhs only) has been paid to the Complainant Company. True
Copy of the said notice and the postal receipt for sending the notices are
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F (Colly).
8. It is relevant to mention herein that Accused No.2 is not only the
signatory of the said cheque but also the proprietor of the Accused No.1
and hence, responsible for the conduct of the latter. Moreover, Accused
No. 3 is the authorized signatory of the Accused No. 1. Therefore, all the
Accused(s) are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the
dishonored cheque and liable to be prosecuted and punished under
Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

9. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, it is

abundantly clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons are
jointly and severally liable to be prosecuted and punished for an offence
committed under, inter-alia, Section 138 and 142 read with Section 141
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In addition to the aforesaid, the
accused persons are also liable to be prosecuted under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.

10.It is submitted that the Complainant has a cause of action against the
accused(s) and the right to file the present complaint. The cause of action
first arose in favour of the Complainant when the cheque was presented
for encashment on 24.10.2023 but was returned/dishonoured by the bank.
The cause of action further arose when even after the expiry of the period
of 15 days from the issuance of the demand notice, the Accused(s) did not
come forward to pay the outstanding amount. The cause of action is still
subsisting and continuing in nature as the payment has not been made by
the accused(s) till date.

11.It is further submitted that since the bank where the said cheques were
presented for encashment falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this
 Hon’ble court, this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate upon the present complaint.

12.That the present complaint is filed with bonafide intention and in interest
of justice.
PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

a. Summon, prosecute and punish all the Accused(s) for the offence
committed by them under Section 138, Section 141 and Section 142 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and direct the Accused(s) to pay
the amount of INR 48,00,000/- (Indian Rupee Forty-Eight Lakhs
only).

b. Impose a fine/penalty to the extent of double the amount of Cheques

bearing Nos. 000005 and 000006 issued by the Accused(s) and further
direct the Accused(s) to compensate the Complainant to meet the ends
of justice and in accordance with Section 357 of Code of Criminal
Procedure 1974;

or

c. Pass an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act,

1881 directing the accused being the drawer of the cheque to pay 20%
of the INR 48,00,000/- as an interim compensation to the
Complainant;
d. Pass any other orders in favour of the Complaint which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

COMPLAINANT

Through

(ASHISH KOTHARI) (DEVANG GAUTAM)

ADVOCATES FOR THE COMPLAINANT
KING STUBB & KASIVA
UNIT-14, GROUND FLOOR, DLF TOWER-A,
JASOLA NEW DELHI-110025
 VERIFICATION

I, Nikhil Nikam Authorized Signatory of the Complainant herein, do hereby

verify that the contents of Paras _________ of the Complaint are true and
correct to my knowledge and believed to be true. The contents of
Paras_________are based on legal advice received by me. Para____ is the
prayer before this Hon'ble Court.

Verified by me at New Delhi on this ______ day of__________, 2024

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO._____________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Syngenta India Pvt Ltd. …Complainant

VERSUS

Mahashakti Krishi Kendra & Ors. …Accused(s)

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nikhil Nikam, S/o Rajan Nikam, aged about 38 years, working as

Assistant Legal Counsel with Complainant having its registered office at
Amar Paradigm, Sr. No. 110/11/13, Baner Road Pune, Maharashtra-41105,
presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirms and state on oath:

1. That I am the Authorized Signatory of the Complainant in the Captioned

matter and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
present Complaint and such competent to affirm this affidavit.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the Complaint filed under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and state that the content of
the same are true and correct to my knowledge and based on information
derived from records and believed to be correct.

3. That the contents of the present affidavit are true and correct and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified by me at New Delhi on this ______day of _______2024 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge, no part of its false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO._____________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Syngenta India Pvt Ltd. …Complainant

VERSUS

Mahashakti Krishi Kendra & Ors. …Accused(s)

PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT

I, Nikhil Nikam, S/o Rajan Nikam, aged about 38 years, working as

Assistant Legal Counsel with Complainant having its registered office at
Amar Paradigm, Sr. No. 110/11/13, Baner Road Pune, Maharashtra-41105,
presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirms and state on oath:

1. That I am the Authorized Signatory of the Complainant in the Captioned

matter and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
present Complaint and such competent to affirm this affidavit.

2. I say that the Accused No.1 being well aware of the reputation and
goodwill of the Complainant, approached the Complainant to be
appointed as one of its Distributors. I say that the Complainant relying on
the assurance and the trust conveyed by the Accused No.1, appointed the
Accused No.1 as one of its Distributors vide distribution agreement dated
09.11.2021 (“Agreement”). The copy of the said Agreement is EX.
CW1/1
3. I say that pursuant to the appointment of the Accused No.1 as one of the
Distributors of the Complainant, the Complainant started proving its
products to the Accused No.1 on the basis of the orders placed by the
Accused No.1 and accordingly raised invoices for the same. I say that
payment in respect of the said invoices has not been made by the Accused
till date and there is a huge outstanding liability on the part of the
Accused persons towards the Complainant. True Copy of the ledger sheet
evidencing the outstanding amount is Ex. CW1/2.

4. I Say that subsequently, in order to discharge a part of their liability, the

Accused(s) had issued the following cheques to the Complainant: -

S.No. Cheque No. Amount (INR) Date of Issue

1 000005 24,00,000 12.10.2023
2 000006 24,00,000 12.10.2023

I say that the above-mentioned Cheques were signed by Accused No.2

and were issued by the Accused(s) from the Account of the Accused No.1
maintained with Bank of Baroda, Pandharpur, Solapur, Maharastra-
443304. True Copies of the above-mentioned cheques are Ex. CW1/3
and Ex. CW1/4

5. I say that on 24.10.2023, the Complainant presented the above-mentioned

cheques bearing Nos. 000005 and 000006 for encashment before its bank
namely Citi Bank, DLF Capitol Point branch, Cannaught Place, New
Delhi- 110001. I say that all the cheques issued by the Accused(s) were
returned/dishonoured by the bank with the noting/reason “Funds
Insufficient". True Copies of the return memos of all the cheques are Ex.
CW1/5 and Ex. CW1/6
6. I say that The Reserve Bank of India, in its master circular dated
01.07.2013 has defined willful defaulters to be the ones who have
defaulted in meeting the payment obligations despite having the capacity
to honour such obligations. True copy of the Master Circular having Ref.
No. RBI/2013-14/63 DBOD No. CID.BC. 3 /20.16.003/2013-14 dated
01.07.2013 issued by the Reserve Bank of India are Ex. CW1/7.

7. I say that from facts narrated in the accompanying complaint, it is clear

that the Accused(s) were well aware of their liability to make payments to
the Complainant, however, the Accused(s) willfully issued the aforesaid
cheques for discharging their partial liability knowing fully well that
sufficient funds were not available in the bank account.

8. I say that as the aforesaid cheques amounting to INR 48,00,000/- (Indian

Rupee Twenty-Nine Lakhs only) issued by the Accused(s) were
dishonoured, the Complainant was constrained to send a demand notice
dated 03.11.2023 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 to the Accused(s), informing the Accused Persons that the aforesaid
cheques issued by them were dishonoured and calling upon them to pay
the amounts mentioned in the said cheques. I say that till date, neither any
response has been received to the aforesaid Notice from any of the
accused persons nor the amount of INR 48,00,000/- (Indian Rupee
Twenty-Nine Lakhs only) has been paid to the Complainant Company.
True Copy of the said notice and the postal receipt for sending the notices
are Ex. CW1/8 and Ex. CW1/9.

9. I say that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on _______ day of_________2024 that the

contents of Para 1-9 of the affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT