Disposed

sreemohan d. mundra and Ors. v. m/s. m.g. construction company and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2005APPLN/3500/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed applications seeking quashing of process issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held revision before Sessions Court was the efficacious remedy and directed applicants to prefer it within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief extended for four weeks; liberty granted to prefer revision before Sessions Court within that period.

sreemohan d. mundra and Ors. Vs m/s. m.g. construction… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3500 OF 2005
 Shri.Sreemohan D.Mundra
 and Ors. ..Applicants

¶3

 Vs.
 M/s.M.G.Construction Co.
 & Anr. ..Respondents

¶4

 ...
 Mr.A.P.Mundergi with Mr.Subodh Desai
 Advocate for Applicants
 Mr.Anil K.Lulla for Respondent no.1
 Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for the State
 ...
 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3501 OF 2005

¶5

 Simplex Concrete Piles (I)
 Ltd. and Ors. ..Applicants
 Vs.
 M/s.M.G.Construction Co.
 & Anr. ..Respondents

¶6

 ...
 Mr.A.P.Mundergi with Mr.Subodh Desai
 Advocate for Applicants
 Mr.Anil K.Lulla for Respondent no.1
 Ms.S.V.Gajare, A.P.P. for the State

¶7

 WITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3502 OF 2001

¶8

 Shri.Rajeev Mundra
 and Or. ..Applicants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

-2-

¶11

 M/s.M.G.Construction Co.
 & Anr. ..Respondents

¶12

 ...
 Mr.A.P.Mundergi with Mr.Subodh Desai
 Advocate for Applicants
 Mr.Anil K.Lulla for Respondent no.1
 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State

¶13

 CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.
 DATE : SEPT. 2,2005

¶14

P.C.

¶15

 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants,

¶16

 learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and the
 learned A.P.P. for the State in all the three
 matters.

¶17

 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of

¶18

 proceedings relating to Criminal Case
 No.1159/SS/2005 pending before the learned
 Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri,

¶19

 Mumbai. In the said case, process has been issued
 against the applicants under Section 138 r.w. 141
 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned
 advocate for the applicants submitted that the
 learned Magistrate committed an error in issuing
 process and the said process deserves to be set

¶20

-3-

¶21

 aside. It is further submitted that if the process
 issued against the applicants is set aside, the
 proceedings in respect of the applicants, would
 come to an end.

¶22

 3. For the reasons recorded in my order dated 13th
 June, 2005 in W.P.No. 213 of 2005 and dated 21st
 June, 2005 in Cri.Application No.550 of 2005, I am
 of the opinion that the applicants have an
 efficacious remedy of preferring revision against
 the order of Magistrate issuing process. Hence, in
 my view, it would be appropriate that the
 applicants prefer a revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate
 issuing process.

¶23

 4. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer
 the necessary revision before the concerned
 Sessions Court. The learned advocate for the
 applicants makes a statement that the necessary
 revision will be preferred within four weeks from
 today. In view of this statement, ad-interim
 relief granted by this Court shall stand extended
 for a period of four weks from today.

¶24

-4-

¶25

 . The learned advocate for the respondent

¶26

 no.1-complainant fairly states that no objection

¶27

 will be raised in respect of delay in filing the
 revision.

¶28

 5. On the necessary revision being preferred by

¶29

 the applicants before the concerned Sessions Court,
 the concerned Sessions Court shall dispose of the
 matter on merits after hearing the necessary
 parties.

¶30

 6. Criminal Applications are disposed of.

¶31

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

sreemohan d. mundra and Ors. v. m/s. m.g. construction company and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sreemohan d. mundra and Ors. v. m/s. m.g. construction company and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vakil Ramzan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Urison Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Shikhar Trading Ltd.and Ors.

Abubakar Sow Vs P.V. Nayak and Anr.

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi

Pravin Mane Vs Jayeshbhai Sanghvi and Anr.

Radhika Sanjay Godse Vs Subhas Vishnu Gokhale and Ors.