Allowed

M/S. Sai Drishti Enterprises v. M/S Excel Ice Services and Ors.

Bombay HC3 May 2011APPLN/1054/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted leave to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, setting aside the lower court finding of acquittal and directing proceedings to be heard at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Leave to Appeal granted; Appeal to come up for admission on 23rd June, 2011.

M/S. Sai Drishti Enterprises Vs M/S Excel Ice Services and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 (907) Appln 1054/07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1054 OF 2007

¶5

M/s. Sai Drishti Enterprises.. Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. Dharam Sharma i/b M/s. Dharam & Co. for the
Applicant.
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam for Respondent No.2.

¶8

Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh for the Respondent State.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1.This is an application for leave to file Appeal
against the order of acquittal for Criminal prosecution
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
Complainant and the accused are traders trading in paper
meant for packaging of the supply of the goods to various
parties. Three orders were placed by the accused upon
the Complainant. Pursuant to the first order an invoice
was raised on 6th September, 1999 bearing No. 11599/2000
for Rs.1,44,938/- for the price of goods sold. A Cheque
for Rs.1,44,938/- was issued on 09.10.1999 after the
supply was effected. That cheque came to be dishonoured
on 20.03.2000.

¶11

2.Parties have also corresponded with regard to
that supply on 13.10.1999. The supplier of the
complainant who informed about the complaint of inferior
goods called for inspection of the goods on 21.09.1999.

¶12

2 (907) Appln 1054/07

¶13

The Complainant wrote to the accused to make arrangement
for inspection. The inspection is not shown to be
arranged for. On 05.11.1999 the accused replied to two
letters of the Complainant as well as the Complainant's
supplier alleging inferior goods supplied. This
reference to the order dated 10th September, 1999. The
goods were supplied prior to 10th September, 1999. This,
therefore, does not relate to the order for the goods
supplied on 6th September, 1999.

¶14

3.Two other consignments were supplied later
under the order dated 10th September, 2000. These were on
18th September, 1999 and 20th September, 1999 under invoice
dated 116 & 117. The Complainant does not relate to
these consignments or the goods supplied thereunder
though reference is made to Bill No.115.

¶15

4.Letter of the accused dated 5th November, 1999
which is with regard to later supply has been replied on
27th March, 2000. The Complainant has reminded the
accused of the inspection which was arranged for which
was not done.

¶16

5.This correspondence shows the allegations made
of inferior supply but not substantiated. Under the
further orders which were placed also goods were supplied
and have been received.

¶17

6.Dishonour of cheque is for the exact amount of
the invoice. Hence no part of the invoice has been paid
though the goods were not returned nor offered for
inspection.

¶18

3 (907) Appln 1054/07

¶19

7.Consequently the order of acquittal requires
reconsideration. Leave to Appeal is granted. Appeal to
come up for admission on 23rd June, 2011. The Record and
Proceedings have also been called. Hence the Appeal
shall be taken up for hearing at the stage of admission.

¶20

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

M/S. Sai Drishti Enterprises v. M/S Excel Ice Services and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sai Drishti Enterprises v. M/S Excel Ice Services 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

Mstc Limited Vs Omega Petrochemicals and Ors.

Rajeshkumar Dewanchand Mehra Vs Shivram Nivruti Wathore and Anr.

Vishnu Shridhar Adnaik Vs Virendra Gajanan Powar and Anr.

Deepa Jethanand Lalwani Vs Ramesh Santdas Khilani and Anr.

T. a. Shah Group of Companies Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatray Laxman Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra