Dismissed

Ismt Ltd, v. M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2009APPLN/286/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected two leave applications filed by the complainant company seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The court held that the complainant's witness lacked authority and that the liability was extinguished by admitted repayment.

What did the court decide?

Leave applications to file appeal against acquittal rejected.

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P)… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2009 IN

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2009 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008

¶5

ISMT Ltd. V/s. M/s.Bhaatia Mini Sping & Engg. Co.(P) Ltd.& Ors.

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Niranjan Mundari i/b. M/s.India Law Alliance for the Applicants. Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b.Paras Kuhad & Associates for Respondent No.1 and 2.

¶9

Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶11

DATED : APRIL 23^rd , 2009.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard rival submissions for some time.

¶14

¶15

Both the leave applications are being disposed of as the issue involved is same between the same parties, though, certain facts are different concerning different cheque amounts. Both the original complaints filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were disposed of by common Judgment and order.

¶16

Both the leave applications are preferred by original complainant company for allowing it to file appeal against the acquittal of the Respondent original accused in the matter of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding. On perusing the record and evidence of witnesses for the complainant, it is apparent that admittedly he had no authority to give evidence on behalf of the complainant payee company, and in fact such authority and power of attorney was given in favour of various other officers whose names appeared in the evidence. Reportedly, such officers were not examined and only said officer by name Shri Padmanabhan came to be examined and cross examined. Secondly, it is a factual position that during his cross examination, he had specifically admitted the repayment of the amounts which are covered by the cheques which were dishonoured and for which two criminal complainants came to be lodged. Though, it is the contention of the complainant that total goods worth more than Rs.19 lakhs were purchased by the accused company, some other payments were still outstanding, however,

¶17

¶18

once it is admitted position of the witness of the complainant himself that the amounts for the cheques, which were dishonoured, have already been paid, there cannot be a legally enforceable liability as rightly held by the trial Magistrate.

¶19

Considering the above circumstance and considering that in both the counts as to no authority for the witness to file the compliant and to give evidence and that there was no enforceable liability due to acceptance of the repayment of the amounts covering the cheques, there is nothing to again reagitate the matter and allow the present leave application.

¶20

In the result, leave applications are rejected and accordingly disposed of.

¶21

(A.R. JOSHI, J.)

¶22

Ismt Ltd, v. M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismt Ltd, v. M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, 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

Sunil Vishnupant Dhondugade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alexander Peter Anthony and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shakil Rahimuddin Sayyed @ Yahya Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Renuka M. Kalro Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Shankar Shendkar Vs Suryakant Sakharam More and Anr.