Dismissed

Fortis Financial Services Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2009APPLN/2111/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected an application for leave to appeal and dismissed the criminal appeal against an order acquitting the accused of cheating under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, upholding the trial court's view due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal rejected; criminal appeal dismissed.

Fortis Financial Services Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

*** 1 ***

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2111 OF 2009

¶5

Fortis Financial Services Ltd.

¶6

..... Applicant

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sachin Pande, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. J.P. Kharye, APP for State/respondent no.1.

¶11

CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.

¶12

DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶13

PC :

¶14

1This application is for leave to file an Appeal against
the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2009 passed
acquitting respondent no.2 of the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notice of this
application is served upon respondent no.2. He is absent
despite service.

¶15

2The applicant company filed proceedings for the offene
punishable under section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act
against a company by name Shan Interwell (I) Ltd and
respondent no.2, its Director, for dishonour of the cheque
dated on 29th March, 1999, for the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. It

¶16

*** 2 ***

¶17

appears that since Shan Interwell (I) Ltd. was wound up
through orders of this Court, the applicant got the trial
against the two accused separated. The defence of the Company
and respondent no. 2 was that cheque was issued by way of
security and not towards any legally enforceable debt.

¶18

3The trial court has dismissed the complaint essentially
on the ground that the evidence led by the applicant cannot be
accepted since P.W.1, the only witness examined by it had no
personal knowledge of the transaction between the parties.
P.W.1 had joined the company in the year 2000 whereas the
alleged transaction is of the year 1996. The cheque in
question was also alleged to have been issued in the year
1996. The applicant contends that the present case is based
entirely on the documentary evidence. Since the documents
could be produced through P.W.1, his personal knowledge about
the transaction in not relevant.

¶19

4It is the case of the applicant i. e. Fortis Financial
Services Ltd. that the Company by name Empire Finance Company
Ltd. merged with it in the year 1996. On account of the
merger, all the debts, liabilities and assets of Empire
Finance Company Ltd., came to be owned by the applicant. It
became entitled to recover the debts of the merged company.
The cheque in question was allegedly issued to Empire Finance
Company Ltd.,

¶20

*** 3 ***

¶21

5 The Learned trial Judge took note of the limitations upon the ability of a constituted attorney in deposing in a court of law, imposed by the decision of the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Others. reported in AIR 2005 S.C.439 and Rai Joseph Creado and Ors. v/s. SK.Tamisuddin s/o Late SK. Nazir Ahmed and Others, reported in 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 705. P.W.1 has deposed on the basis of the power of attorney given to him by the Company. He referred to the resolution of the Company dated 24^th January, 2000 but did not produce the same. He was unable to state the transaction in respect of which the proceedings were filed. The complaint also did not specify the details of the transaction. The applicant did not produce balance sheet of the merging company to show that respondent no.2 and his company was one of the debtors. The applicant also did not produce its own balance sheets for the period 2000 to 2008. It also failed to produce its Income Tax returns. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial court must be held to be a reasonable and possible view.

¶22

6Hence, leave to file appeal is rejected. In view of
rejection of the application, the Criminal Appeal also stands
dismissed.

Fortis Financial Services Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fortis Financial Services Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandit Ramchandra Shelke Vs Sopan Ramchandra Shelke and Ors.

Mohd. Mustafa @ Kalim Mohd. Farukh Qureshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Bojalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Rajram Raut Vs Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim and Anr.

Sitaram Shesha Shetty Vs Bhaskar Hande and Anr.

Vaishali Pundlik Dhumal and Anr. Vs Pundalik Shankar Dhumal and Anr.