Allowed

Rajendra Mulla Jilkar v. Ashok G. Railkar and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2007REVN/216/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision concerning a cheque bounce case, the court held the offence compounded based on an affidavit confirming receipt of payment. It affirmed that this disposal does not prejudice pending or concluded winding-up proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of; the offence is compounded; the impugned orders are substituted.

Rajendra Mulla Jilkar Vs Ashok G. Railkar and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 1995

¶5

Rajendra Mallu Jilkar. ...Petitioners
vs.
1. Ashok G. Railkar and Ors....Respondents

¶6

Navin B. Shah for the petitioner.
Y.M. Nakhwa, Public Prosecutor for State.
B.B.Parekh with A.W.Ansari for Respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J,

¶8

7th February, 2007.

¶9

P.C :-

¶10

1.Mr.Shah, appearing for the petitioner original
complaint has tendered an Affidavit of the petitioner
which records receipt of a sum of Rs.5 lacs in cash
and Rs.1,50,000/- by cheque. Thus, it confirms the
receipt of the total sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. The said
Affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’.

¶11

2.Criminal Revision Application No. 216 of 1995

¶12

:2:

¶13

is disposed off in the light of this Affidavit and
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act stands compounded. The orders under
challenge in this Revision Application are
substituted accordingly.

¶14

3.There is an application made for speaking to
the minutes of the order dated 16.1.2007. Mr. Shah
states that the applicant original complainant has
 initiated civil proceedings against the respondent
which are pending.

¶15

4.Mr.Parekh appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and
2, clarifies that the only proceeding which was
pending was a Company Petition for winding up which
has been disposed off and the Liquidator stands
appointed. The respondent no.2 company has been
wound up.

¶16

5.Needless to state that my order dated
16.1.2007 as also the one passed today would not
prejudice the rights of the parties to the Company
Petition and proceedings before the Liquidator. All

¶17

:3:

¶18

claims lodged before the Liquidator shall be
processed on merits and in accordance with law. The
order dated 16.1.2007 and observation made therein is
for the purpose of disposal of the present Revision
Application and the proceedings under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and they shall be
confined to the same. Application for speaking to
the minutes is disposed off.

Rajendra Mulla Jilkar v. Ashok G. Railkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Mulla Jilkar v. Ashok G. Railkar and Ors.

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

Kulbhushan Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

keystone realtors private limited Vs -

M/S. Bairav Products (India) Vs M/S. Epc Industries Ltd.

Ramchhabil Jagaru Kushwah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fardeen Feroz Khan Vs Union of India and Anr.

Milind Vaman Khanolkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.