Remanded

M.G. Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2008WP/503/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the court directed the Sessions Court not to be influenced by specific findings recorded in an interim stay order while deciding revision applications under the NI Act. All contentions on merits were kept open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Sessions Judge not to be influenced by previous stay order observations; to disposition matters expeditiously.

M.G. Construction Company Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.503 OF 2008.

¶2

M.G. Construction Company.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr.Manjeet Singh, Partner of the Petitioner-Company. Mr.A.P. Mundargi with A.M.Sarogi, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 15.

¶8

Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST,2008.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1.		I have heard Mr.	Manjee	t Singh, a	partner of
the	Petitio	ner-Company	in	support	of this Petition.
I have		also heard		the	learned Counsel Shri.
A.P.Mundargi,		appearing	for	the	Respondent Nos.2 to
15.	Shri	Mundargi	states	that	Shri Sarogi who is
instructing	him	will fi	le	a V	akalatnama of Respondent

¶12

Nos.2 to 15 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶13

The statement is accepted.

¶14

2.		The petitioner-Com	pany is the Com	plainant in
a	complaint	filed under	section	138 read with	section
141	of the	Negotiable	Instruments	Act, 1881.	Process
was	issued	on the	complaint.	There are	Revision
Appli	cations	pending b	efore the	Sessions Court	filed
by	the	different acc	used per	sons. The	Revision

¶15

¶16

Applications have been preferred for challenging the

¶17

order issuing process.

¶18

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9th January 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge by which the learned Additional

¶19

Sessions Judge granted stay of trial pending before

¶20

the learned Magistrate till 21st January 2008.

¶21

4.	The partner	of the	Petition	er-Company
appearing	in person	invited my attenti	on	to the	order
dated	9th January	2008. He pointed	out	that	this
Court	had granted st	ay only for a	limite	d period	of
four	weeks from	2nd September 2005	and	the	learned
Additional	Sessions	Judge has proc	eeded	on	erroneous
assumption	that the	stay granted by	this	Court	was
continued	till 21st	March 2007.	He	submitted	that
the	stay could not	have been granted	by	the	order
dated	9th January 200	8 as the stay	gra	nted ea	rlier in
favour	of the accused	persons was va	cated	by th	e same
Court.	He invited	my attention to	par	agraph	no.7 of
the	impugned order.	He pointed	out	that	without
hearing	the Revision	Application	on	merits,	the
learned	Additional	Sessions Judge	has	purported	to
record	findings on	merits of the c	ase.	He	submitted
that	the learned Ju	dge has commit	ted	gross	illegality

¶22

¶23

by recording the said findings. He also invited my attention to paragraph no.9 of the impugned order in which the learned Judge has observed that the impugned order issuing process requires consideration.

¶24

The partner of the Petitioner-Company appearing in person pointed out that he has moved an application for transfer before the learned Sessions

¶25

Judge for transfer of Revision Applications as well

¶26

as a contempt petition filed by him.

¶27

I have considered the submissions. At the outset it must be stated that the order dated 9th January 2008 has worked itself out with the passage of time as the stay was granted by the said order only upto 21st January 2008. Hence, it is not

¶28

necessary to deal with the submissions made on merits

¶29

of the said order.

¶30

However, it will be necessary to refer to what is observed by the learned Additional Sessions

¶31

Judge in paragraph no.7 of the impugned order. The

¶32

relevant part of paragraph no.7 reads thus :-

¶33

"(7) There are catina of decisions regarding

¶34

¶35

vicarious	crim	inal liability of Directors	of
Company	in	respect of offences pu	nishable
under	sec.138	of Negotiable Instrument	Act.
It has	to	be prima facie established	those
Directors	are	responsible for day to	day
affairs of	the	Company. Comp	lainant’s
application	to	array 11 Directors of	the
Company	does n	ot say that those Directors	are
responsible	for	day to day affairs of	the
Company	/	accused no.3. In	the
circumstances,		order issuing process	against
the	Directors	of the Company	requires

¶36

consideration."

¶37

In paragraph no.9 of the order, the learned Judge has

¶38

observed thus :-

¶39

8.		It is obv	ious th	at while consid	ering the
prayer	for	stay,	the	learned	Additio	nal	Sessions		Judge
could	not	have	record	ed any	finding	on	merits	of	the
order	issuing	proc	ess	and	therefor	e,	when		the
Revision	Ap	plications		will be	heard	on	merits,		the

¶40

¶41

concerned Court will have to decide the same without

¶42

being influenced by the aforesaid observations in

¶43

paragraph nos.7 and 9 of the impugned order.

¶44

9.		It is true that this Court had continued the
interim	relief	only for the period	of	four	weeks.
The	said	interim relief granted by	this	Court	never
operated	till	21st March 2007.	It	appears	that
ad-interim	stay	earlier granted by	the	Sessions	Judge
in	favour	of the accused was vac	ated.	As	stated
earlier,	the	impugned order of stay	has	worked	out
itself	in the	sense that the said	order	was	operative
till	21st	January 2008. There is	no	challenge	in

¶45

this Petition to any other subsequent order passed by

¶46

the Sessions Court.

¶47

The partner of the Petitioner-Company appearing in person states that the Revision Applications and the Contempt Petition be directed to be disposed of expeditiously after the transfer application made by the Petitioner is disposed of by

¶48

the leaned Sessions Judge. The said prayer can be

¶49

acceded to.

¶50

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶51

¶52

(1)	While	deciding	the pending Criminal
Revision	Applic	ations,	the learned Sessions
Judge w	ill not	be	influenced by the
observations/	findings	recorded	by the leaned
Additional	Sessions	Judge	in order dated 9th
January	2008	and in	particular, observations
made in	paragraph	nos. 7	and 9 of the said
order.

¶53

(2) The Transfer Application filed by the

¶54

Petitioner shall be disposed of expeditiously. The pending Revision Applications and the contempt petitions will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks

¶55

from the date on which the Transfer Application filed by the Petitioner is decided by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶56

(3) All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶57

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

M.G. Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G. Construction Company v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mr. Iqbal Harun Dalla . Vs Smt. Tabassum Abdul Sattar and Anr. .

Ashok Gangwani Vs Michael Poshan Furtado and Ors.

Pentappa Erappa Gaddam and Anr. Vs Prabhakar Narsayya Anantul and Anr.

Jyotindra N. Mankad and Anr. Vs Ion Exchange Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Fabrico India Private Limited and Anr. Vs Ecoboard Industries Limited and Anr.

Tata Steel Ltd. Vs A.B. Trading and Ors.