Allowed

Hariprasanna R. Chittapurkar v. Ruby Organics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2011WP/2669/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accused No.3, in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court quashed the process, holding the petitioner was not a director of the relevant company during the transaction as he had resigned in 2005.

What did the court decide?

Process issued against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Criminal Case No.10559/SS/09 stands quashed.

Hariprasanna R. Chittapurkar Vs Ruby Organics Pvt. Ltd. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP-2669-10.sxw

¶2

Mhi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2669 OF 2010

¶5

Hariprasanna R. Chittapurkar ) Aged 44 years, Indian Inhabitant, ) addtress at H.No.11/181 Brahampur ) Upper lane, Gulbarga 585103. ).. Petitioner. Vs.

¶6

Ruby Organics Pvt.Ltd. ) D.79, MIDC Turbe, Navi ) Mumbai 400 705. )

¶7

The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents

¶8

Ms. Gauri S.Rao,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sumesh s. Panjwani, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.2 - State.

¶9

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

¶10

DATE : 16th March, 2011.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard.

¶13

The respondent No.1 filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of

¶14

Negotiable Instruments Act against the three accused persons. Accused No.1 -

¶15

S.G.S. Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. is a private limited company registered under the

¶16

2 WP-2669-10.sxw

¶17

Companies Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were shown to be directors of the respondent No.1. According to the complainant, he had supplied certain goods to the accused No.1 of which accused No.2 is a Managing Director. For repayment of the price of the goods, the accused had issued two cheques in favour of the complainant. Both cheques were signed by the accused No.2. The cheques were presented for encashment, but were returned on 21.2.2009 as dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Inspite of statutory notice, payment was not made and therefore, complaint was filed.

¶18

The petitioner, who is accused No.3 and who was one of the directors of accused No.1 company claims that he had resigned from the post of director on 22.9.2005 itself and during the relevant period, he was not director of the company. The petitioner has produced not only office copy of the resignation letter submitted by him and which was received by the accused No.2, the Managing Directo he has also produced certified true copy of form No.32 submitted to the Registrar of Companies. As per that form No.32 also, it is confirmed that he is not associated with the company with effect from 22.9.2005 in the capacity of director. This document is not disputed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the company. In view of this, it is clear that the petitioner had ceased to be director of accused No.1 company long before the transaction took place

¶19

3 WP-2669-10.sxw

¶20

between the parties. Therefore, the process issued against him is liable to be quashed.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, the process issued against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Criminal Case No.10559/SS/09 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court at Kurla, Mumbai, stands quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶22

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Hariprasanna R. Chittapurkar v. Ruby Organics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasanna R. Chittapurkar v. Ruby Organics Pvt. Ltd. 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

Meera Aralikatte Narayan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kanchan Sunil Mansingani Vs Sharmila Raj Thackery

Arati Rajnikant Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashish C. Shah Vs M/S. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Ors.

Western India Regional Council for Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India Vs Ramesh M. Joshi and Anr.

Yeshwant Sakharam Chavan Vs Ankush Tukaram Bhairavkar and Ors.