138 Notice in Bankhele Final

Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
Email:aparnaslegal@gmail.com
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
VASHI OFF: 202, 2nd Floor, Arenja Corner, Plot No. 71, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai –
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
PEN OFF: 20,Ground Floor, ParmarPlaza, Mahavir Marg, Opp.Pen Police Station, Pen
Raigad- 402107
Ref No: 011/AS/2021 Date: 23rd August 2021

R.P.A.D./COURIER
MY CLIENT:
Shri. Manoj Balkrishna Bankhele,
Residing at Kalpataru Riverside,

3-B/101, Kaveri Opp. Panchmukhi
Hanuman Mandir, Panvel Taluka,
District Raigad 410 206
To,
Shri. Ganesh Maruti Kalyankar,
Add: C-105, Shree Sahyog CHS Ltd.
Lokhandipada, Near Ashok Baug,
Old Panvel, District Raigad-410 206
Sir,
I am concerned for my client Shri. Manoj Balkrishna Bankhele,
my client is having address mentioned above. On his instructions I
have been instructed to address you as under;
1. That my client states that my client is a citizen of India and a permanent
residence of Panvel, Raigad. That my client and you both are the partners of
partnership firm M/s. Siddhivinayak Enterprises. The said firm came into
existence vide Deed of Partnership dated 16/10/2012. The Claimant states
that on 04/12/2012, application for the registration of the said partnership
firm was filed with the registrar of firm, accordingly, Form No. A was also
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
submitted by both the parties. However, till the date the said partners have not
received the registration certificate of the registration of the firm from the
registrar of firm. Therefore, in meanwhile the said partnership firm is deemed
to be a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the said
partnership viz. M/s. Siddhivinayak Enterprises shall be referred to as the
“said Partnership Firm” for the same of brevity).
2. That my client further states that accordingly, the business of the firm was
framed as to supply the building material like sand and stone through the
transportation and otherwise. Details of the said (Assets)vehicles are as
follows:
Sr. No. Date of Vehicle Registration Vehicle type
registration No.
1 07/07/2010 MH-06-AQ-7380 Dumper
2 11/06/2014 MH-46-AF-029 Dumper
3 03/11/2014 MH-46-AF-1968 Dumper
4 04/12/2014 MH-46-AF-2691 Dumper
5 04/12/2014 MH-46-AF-2693 Dumper
6 04/12/2014 MH-46-AF-2694 Dumper
7 04/12/2014 MH-46-AF-2695 Dumper
8 11/06/2014 MH-46-AF-30 Dumper
9 09/01/2015 MH-46-AF-3399 Dumper
10 29/10/2012 MH-46-F-3807 Dumper
11 31/10/2012 MH-46-F-8676 Dumper
12 13/03/2014 MH-46-H-8676 Dumper
13 06/06/2015 MH-46-AF-6388 Dumper
14 06/06/2015 MH-46-AF-6389 Dumper
15 20/04/2016 MH-46-AR-3034 Transit Mixer
16 20/04/2016 MH-46-AR-3035 Transit Mixer
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
17 27/04/2016 MH-46-AR-3142 Dumper

18 22/06/2015 MH-43-AD-0272 Tanker
19 07/04/2017 MH-04-DD 9490 Transit Mixer
20 07/04/2017 MH-04-DD-9491 Transit Mixer
3. The said business was running smoothly till 2016 and

thereafter, the firm started sustaining the losses due to
depreciation and the misappropriation created by you. The
huge losses started occurring, therefore, my client was very
much worried for the status of the firm and started to find the
solution for the same and accordingly the Claimant had given
a proposal to you to sell some of the vehicles to come out
from the crunches and losses to pay the dues of the third
parties. But the same proposal was denied by the you and it
was suggested to raise the finance from private parties. Both
the parties had decided to act as per the clause no. 13 of the
partnership firm and to raise the funds from the private
parties. But you could not raise the funds and the complete
responsibility was shouldered upon my client. As the
claimant has good reputation in the market and hence again
raised the funds from the various private non-banking
financers and private parties at the interest rate of 1% p.m. As
well as the known relatives and friends helped my client
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
without any interest rate. Some of the loans are still unpaid till
now. My client further states that in the month of November
2016, due to the demonetization, the market was going down
day by day and therefore, payments of the vendors from the
market were almost stopped and it became difficult to run the
vehicles and to pay the EMIs as well as the interest to the
hand loans taken over by the private companies and Non-
Financial Institutions.
4. My client further states that though the business was going on

but the dues were increasing day by day due to the
demonetization. During the stage of the demonetization and
thereafter the parties and the debtors as well as financial and
non-financial companies were continuously after the
payments. My client again suggested you for sale of the
vehicles but you completely denied your responsibility
towards the payments and also did not agree for the sale of
single vehicle to reduce the burden of the partnership firm.
5. My client further states that in the month of June 2017, you

had almost stopped attending the office of the partnership
firm and started ignoring the work. As well as you had
stopped giving the explanation for any expenses done on
behalf of the Company. Meanwhile, the EMIs of the vehicles
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
started bouncing and finance companies started visiting the

office of the partnership firm. Therefore, my client had not
left with the option but to pay at least government liabilities
i.e. the service tax, TDS, VAT in the month of July 2017 as
the creditors and liabilities were coming on the head of my
client. You had almost stopped looking after of the business
of the partnership firm and therefore, my client was the only
person who was answerable to the third parties and the
creditors.
6. My client further states that accordingly, you had committed a

breach of the terms and conditions of the partnership firm and
as per the clause of the partnership deed my client was not left
with any option but to issue notice upon you on 16/01/2018.
Through this notice my client dissolved the firm as per the
clause of partnership as the partnership was at will. My client
states that you did not bother to reply to the said notice within
the prescribed time and therefore on 22/01/2018, my client
filed the Application No. 2 of 2018 under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District
Judge-I, Raigad, Alibag applied for the Injunction against
you. My client further filed an Application for Interim
Injunction. My client states that after hearing the case of my
client, the Learned District Judge-I, Raigad, Alibag granted
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
the ad-interim and directed not to create any third party

interest in the vehicles which were in the name of the
partnership firm and not to transfer the same to any third
party. It was further directed not to misuse the letter head,
stamp of the partnership firm for his personal gain and not to
do any transaction in the Bank Accounts, which are in the
name of the partnership firm for his personal gains. As well as
not use the name of the partnership firm in your personal
business.
7. That since the dispute has arisen between my client and you
under the Agreement dated 16/10/2012, which contains the
arbitration clause. Both the parties agreed for the same clause
and has suggested their own Arbitrators accordingly. My
client dissolved the said firm and invoked the arbitration
clause by proposing his own arbitrator. Therefore, my client
filed the Arbitration Petition No. 72 of 2018 before the
Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai. In the said Petition the Hon’ble
Justice S.J. Kathawala vide its order dated 05/09/2018
appointed Mr. Akshay Patil, Advocate as a Sole Arbitrator to
decide the dispute between the parties arising out of the
Partnership Deed dated 16/10/2012 with the consent of both
the parties. Accordingly, my client filed his Statement of
Claim as his share for the amount of Rs.1,74,63,423.50.
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
8. During the pendency of the said Arbitration proceeding. The

Ad-interim was granted by the Hon’ble Arbitrator. During the
pendency of the Arbitration Proceeding, parties had decided
to settle the matter amicably and accordingly consent terms
were filed on 20.01.2020 before the Arbitrator. My client
further states that with intention to wind up the litigation and
end up the dispute arose in the partnership business
peacefully; my client had agreed for the Compromise and
accordingly terms and conditions agreed between the parties.
9. Thereafter the consent terms were filed by the parties on 21 st

January 2020 before the Arbitrator. As per the Consent terms
you had agreed to pay 50,00,000/- to my client within 6
months. Accordingly, you had issued 5 cheques in favour of
my client. In the month of April 2020, the request was made
to my client not to deposit the cheques due to pandemic
situation, which was agreed and considered by client on the
humanity ground and claimant did not deposit the cheques.
10. The lockdown opened in month of June 2020, my client again

requested you to complete the transaction which was pending
since January 2020, but you again requested not to deposit the
four cheques i.e. given for the month for month of July 2020.
Due to pandemic situation the Claimant again considered the
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
request of yours and co-operated fully and didn’t deposit any

cheque given in the year 2020. Further you agreed to waive
the agreed interest vide Consent Terms dated 20th January
2020. Thereafter no intimation or communication was made
from you till my client informed you through email dated 19 th
October 2020. Thereafter you requested for extension of time
to comply the consent terms. Finally on 8 th December 2020
you filed the application for the extension of time.
Accordingly, by considering the situation my client again co-
operated by all means and finally on 15 th April 2021 the
modified Consent Terms were executed between the parties
and the same were emailed to the Arbitrator on 22nd April
2021.
11. My client co-operated his best to take steps for the

compliance of the consent terms. You had already paid Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) on 6 th January, 2020 as
per Clause (c) of the consent terms. The Respondent will be
paying balance consideration/settlement amount Rs.
47,00000/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakhs) as per following
modified clause. It is agreed, confirmed and declared by both
the parties that the Respondent shall handover five (5)
cheque/s towards his liabilities the cheque/s drawn on IDBI
Bank Ltd., Panvel Branch from his personal Savings Banking
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
Account of Respondent bearing Account No.

0189104000255745 of the amount to be paid as agreed herein
above in point (7), the details of which are as follows: -
i. Cheque No. 742966 dated 27th February, 2021 for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Only)
ii. Cheque No742967 dated 30th April, 2021 for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Only)
iii. Cheque No. 742968 dated 31st July, 2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only)
iv. Cheque No. 742969 dated 31st July, 2021 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Only)
v. Cheque No. 742970 dated 31st July, 2020 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Only)
vi. Cheque No. 742970 dated 31st July, 2021 for Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Only)
12. My client further states that 2 cheques Cheque No. 742966 dated 27 th
February, 2021 for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) and Cheque
No742967 dated 30th April, 2021 for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
Only) was cleared.
13. But the other cheques issued on dated 31.07.2021 were dishonored.
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
1. Cheque No. 742968 dated 31st July, 2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only)
2. Cheque No. 742969 dated 31st July, 2021 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only)
3. Cheque No. 742970 dated 31st July, 2020 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only)
All the above cheques were issues towards your legally enforceable
debt/liability which was created towards the compliance of Modified Consent
Terms Clause no. 3 (a). The said cheques were drawn on IDBI Bank,
Mahesh Bhavan, Behind Telephone Exchange, Panvel, (Dist. Raigad)
Maharashtra – 410206 bearing your signature. On your instructions and given
date my client deposited all aforesaid mentioned three cheques with my
client’s Bankers HDFC Bank Ltd., Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001,
Maharashtra India, which were dishonored for reasons "Funds
Insufficients" and was duly intimated to my client on 02.08.2021. That even
after the said dishonor you have failed to repay back to my client the said
amount. That my client feels cheated as he agreed for the settlement under the
Consent Terms dated 20.01.2020 and 15.04.2021. and you have taken the
advantage of my client’s good deed and co-operation to settle the issues
raised between the parties.
14. That under these circumstances as per consent term dated 20.01.2020, clause
no. 5 (cc ) my client has instructed me to call upon you which we hereby do
Mob: 9322513753/8850916846
APARNA SHINDE
ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
400 703
__________________________________________________________________________________
Raigad- 402107
to pay him a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only) covered by
aforesaid cheques within 15 days of receipt of this demand notice failing
which proceedings u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be
filed against you before the appropriate Court of Law. Without prejudice to
the above my client has also instructed me to file a Police Complaint against
you for the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
7 years and shall also be liable to fine as well as to initiate appropriate Civil
Procedure. You are further called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty five Thousand Only) towards Advocates fees for sending you this
demand notice. We sincerely hope that you would not precipitate this issue
any further and avoid an unpleasant situation which may soon arise.
15. This is a demand notice as contemplated u/s 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881
Yours Truly,
Ms. Aparna Shinde

(AdvocateHigh Court)

138 Notice in Bankhele Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

138 Notice in Bankhele Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mob: 9322513753/8850916846

Ref No: 011/AS/2021 Date: 23rd August 2021

Residing at Kalpataru Riverside,

17 27/04/2016 MH-46-AR-3142 Dumper

3. The said business was running smoothly till 2016 and

4. My client further states that though the business was going on

5. My client further states that in the month of June 2017, you

started bouncing and finance companies started visiting the

6. My client further states that accordingly, you had committed a

the ad-interim and directed not to create any third party

8. During the pendency of the said Arbitration proceeding. The

9. Thereafter the consent terms were filed by the parties on 21 st

10. The lockdown opened in month of June 2020, my client again

request of yours and co-operated fully and didn’t deposit any

11. My client co-operated his best to take steps for the

Account of Respondent bearing Account No.

15. This is a demand notice as contemplated u/s 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments

Ms. Aparna Shinde

You might also like