Allowed

Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi v. Prashant Shashikant Muchandi and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2009APPLN/497/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's revision, restoring a complaint dismissed for want of prosecution. The court held the applicant should receive a chance to have the complaint heard on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3rd October 2006 is set aside; the complaint is restored to file subject to payment of Rs.15,000 costs by the applicant to the respondent.

Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi Vs Prashant Shashikant Muchandi… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.497 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2007

¶3

Mr.Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi....Applicant

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Mr.Prashant Shashikant Muchandi....Respondents
& Anr.

¶6

Mr. Sandesh Patil i/by Mr.P.P. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Das, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State.

¶7

Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 25^th August, 2009

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1.This revision application is filed to challenge the
correctness and legality of the order dated 3rd October 2006, by
which the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed for want of prosecution
and respondents acquitted of the offence. The impugned order
shows that the complaint has been pending for taking steps to
serve the summons. For more than a year, the complainant was not
attending the Court and therefore the court dismissed the
complaint for want of prosecution. The only explanation sought to
be given in the application for non attendance of the applicant
that he had been told by the Advocate engaged by him in the
proceedings that he need not remain present in the court and the
matter would be looked after by the learned Advocate. Relying on

¶10

¶11

the advice of the Advocate, the applicant did not remain present
in the Court on each date of the matter during the period of one
year, which resulted into the impugned order.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that unfortunately
the applicant relied upon the word of his Advocate and requests
that the applicant be given an opportunity to have his complaint
heard on merits instead of the same being dismissed for want of
prosecution. I have heard both the sides. Perused the complaint
and the order. I am of the opinion that the applicant may be given
a chance to have his complaint heard on merits. The respondent
however is required to be compensated the costs. Hence, the
Criminal Application is allowed. The order dated 3rd October 2006
is set aside. The complaint No.1887 of 2005 is restored to file
on condition of the applicant pays costs quantified Rs.15,000/- to
respondent no. 1, within a period of two weeks.

Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi v. Prashant Shashikant Muchandi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi v. Prashant Shashikant Muchandi 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

Vishnu Rajram Raut Vs Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim and Anr.

Sitaram Shesha Shetty Vs Bhaskar Hande and Anr.

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

Shrikant Saranlal Gupta Vs Mr. Parveez Rahamat Ahmed and Anr.

Ajaysingh Maganlal Anjana Vs Union of India and Anr.

Allan Graeme Bainbridge Vs Sunil P.P. and Anr.