Dismissed

Ranjeet Tukaram Chaudhary v. M/S. Coolvin Industries and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2006WP/718/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal writ petitions challenging the dismissal of an application to implead additional accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding the impugned order right.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were rejected, maintaining the order dismissing the application for impleading additional accused.

Ranjeet Tukaram Chaudhary Vs M/S. Coolvin Industries and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.718 TO 721 OF 2006

¶4

 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶5

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. P. Parsurampuria i/by U.G.
 Yerunkar for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S.S. Tatkare, APP. for the
 State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED: 13/4/2006.
 P.C.
 1. These petitions seek to quash an
 order dated 10.11.2005 whereby the
 Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra Mumbai
 has dismissed the application made by
 the petitioner who is original accused
 No.2 for impleading additional accused.
 The basis for the application was that
 in the cross examination of the
 complainant, he admitted that the
 delivery section of the accused No.1
 company was being look after by Mr.
 Tata. Mr. R.K. Raghunath and Mr.
 Mathur were looking after purchase and

¶6

:2:

¶7

 Mr. Mathur was one of the Director.

¶8

 The complainant has however, not made
 any averments in the complaint relating
 to these persons and in the absence of

¶9

 any such averments even if they are
 made accused, they are likely to be
 acquitted for the offence U/s.138 of
 the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the
 circumstances, court has rightly
 refused to entertain the application.
 There is no substance in the aforesaid

¶10

 petitions. Hence, the aforesaid

¶11

 petitions are rejected.

¶12

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Ranjeet Tukaram Chaudhary v. M/S. Coolvin Industries and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Tukaram Chaudhary v. M/S. Coolvin Industries 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

Kalu Pandit Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saumitra Pratap Deva Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudhir Keshav Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Rammurat Dwivedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ibrahim Mohammad Chahlil

Paresh Parekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.