Dismissed

Ramniranjan Kediatourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Birla Global Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2006APPLN/284/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a criminal application seeking a stay of Section 138 proceedings pending the police report. The court held the case involved a different offence (forgery) than the cheque case and noted no challenge to lower court orders was made.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application seeking stay of proceedings is rejected with no substantive relief granted.

Ramniranjan Kediatourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.284 OF 2006

¶3

 -----------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office
 Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
 appearances, Court’s orders
 or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶4

 -----------------------------------------------------
 Mr.P.R.Dave for the petitioners.
 Mr.Nimish Desai for Respondent no.1.
 Mr.P.S.Hingorani APP for the State.
Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
 Date : 7.2.2006.
 PC
 1. By this application what is
 sought is stay of proceedings of a
 case under section 138 of N.I.Act
 pending the receipt of final report
 under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
 required to be filed by the Bandra
 police station in MECR No.5/2001.
 It appears that the accused in 138
 proceedings had filed an application
 under Section 210(1) of Cr.P.C. and
 this was rejected by the Magistrate
 on 13.6.2005. The revision
 impugning this order also came to be
 rejected by the Sessions Court on
 19.7.2005. Police case was filed in
 the year 2001 and that pertains to

¶5

 : 2 :

¶6

 alleged forgery of the hire purchase
 agreement executed on 24.4.1994
 under which the amounts were paid
 and cheques were issued to secure

¶7

 payments. By no stretch of
 imagination this case and the 138
 proceedings can be in respect of the
 same offence. Prayer clause also

¶8

 does not indicate that there is any
 challenge to the orders of the lower

¶9

 Courts. In any case there is no

¶10

 substance in the application and the

¶11

 same is rejected.

¶12

(R.S.Mohite,J)

Ramniranjan Kediatourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Birla Global Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniranjan Kediatourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Birla Global Finance Ltd. 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

Sarvapriya Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaya Ramu Salat Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Narsinha Gopal Malgi and Anr.

Pandurang Kisan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunita Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhanudas Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra