Allowed

Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2009APPW/1/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal application filed by an original complainant/employee seeking expeditious hearing of a matter under Section 138 of the NI Act in Maharashtra to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure legal harmony.

What did the court decide?

Application for expedited hearing of the writ petition and related proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act was allowed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt. Ltd. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1 OF 2009
 IN
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2563 OF 2006

¶4

 Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents.

¶7

And

¶8

 Sangeeta Saroogi. .. Applicant.

¶9

 Mr A. M. Saroogi, a/w Ms Seema Gupta, Advocate
 for the Applicant.

¶10

 Mr Preetam P. Runwal, Prakash Naik i/b Mr
 Rajendra Sorankar for petitioners.

¶11

 Ms P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for State.

¶12

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J.

¶13

DATED : 4th April,2009.
P.C.:-

¶14

 1. The applicant(original respondent No.2)
 has moved the present application for
 expeditious hearing, who has filed proceeding
 under section 138 of the N.I.Act against seven
 accused persons. Process was issued by the
 learned J.M.F.C.Kalyan. The said order of
 issuance of process was challenged before this
 Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2563 of

¶15

 2006. This writ petition is prayed to be taken
 up for early hearing.

¶16

 2. The writ petition has already been
 admitted and proceeding only against original
 accused Nos. 3 to 6 was stayed and there was
 no any impediment for the learned J.M.F.C. to
 proceed against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7. In
 fact, reportedly, there was such direction from
 this Court that case against the said remaining
 accused should proceed.

¶17

 3. By the present criminal application,
 original complainant has asked two fold prayer.
 Firstly, to expedite the hearing so that there
 should be possibility of trial of the
 petitioners also in case of dismissal of writ
 petition. Secondly, it is prayed that R and P
 of the matter which is brought before this

¶18

 Court to be sent back to the learned

¶19

 J.M.F.C.Kalyan for taking further action

¶20

 against remaining accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7.

¶21

 4. After hearing rival submissions for
 short, it appears to this Court that there is
 substance in the prayers mentioned in the
 present criminal application as to expeditious

¶22

 hearing or otherwise there would be
 multiplicity of proceeding and there would not
 be a legal harmony.

¶23

 5. In the result, application is allowed
 in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶24

 6. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2563 of
 2006 to appear before appropriate Bench for its

¶25

 expeditious disposal after two weeks.

¶26

 7. Application No.1 of 2009 stands
 disposed of.

¶27

(A.R.JOSHI,J.)

Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 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

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java Vs the Chief Enforcement Officer and Anr.

Prakash M. Pai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaram Dharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashwin Bhikhabhai Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yasin Sheku Nigewan Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Dhanwardhini Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Arjun Haribhau Chaphekar and Anr.