Allowed

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Major Metal Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012APL/62/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three criminal applications arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court granted the applicants a final opportunity to either contest the cases on merits or settle them, ordering them to deposit costs as a condition.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed upon undertaking to deposit Rs. 10,000 per case within two weeks to enable contention or settlement.

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Major Metal Ltd. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

1/4

APL62.63.64 OF 2011

Tilak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 of 2011

¶7

Vee Pee Solders Pvt.Ltd. and anr	...	Applicants
versus
Major MetalS Limited and anr	...	Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2011

¶10

Vee Pee Solders Pvt.Ltd. And anr	...	Applicants
versus
Beri Mercurio Ltd and anr	...	Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 64 of 2011

¶13

Vee Pee Solders Pvt.Ltd. And anr ... Applicants versus Major Metals Limited and anr ... Respondents

¶14

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the applicants in all the matters.

¶15

Mr.H.H. Nagi, Advocate i/b M/s.H.H. Nagi & Associates for respondent no.1.

¶16

Smt.A.A.Mane, APP for the State in all the matters.

¶17

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶18

DATED : August 01, 2012

¶19

2/4 APL62.63.64 OF 2011

¶20

P.C.

¶21

These three applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the facts and the issues raised are the same.

¶22

The applicants are the accused in three cases filed by the respondent no.1 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 141 thereof. The trial of these cases is in progress. It appears that the applicants were taking repeated adjournments before the trial Court on some or the other grounds. The learned Magistrate granted such adjournments from time to time, and on some occasions, only on imposition of certain costs. On 21 April 2010, the matters were fixed for hearing before the Magistrate but, on that day, the applicants again sought an adjournment on the ground of their advocate being busy in the High Court. The Magistrate observed that, this was the usual ground taken by the applicants for seeking adjournments. The Magistrate rejected the applications for adjournment and since the applicants did not choose to cross examine the witness who was present, treated the cross-examination of the witness of the complainant as closed. It appears that the applicants made an application before the Magistrate on the next day of hearing, praying for setting aside the said order on 21 April 2010, and permitting the applicants to cross examine the witness. The Magistrate observed that the applicants had been taking adjournments on various grounds and had been dragging on the matters for a number of years. The Magistrate was of the view, that

¶23

3/4 APL62.63.64 OF 2011

¶24

there were no reasonable grounds to recall the witness and grant further opportunity to the applicants to cross examine. He therefore, rejected the said applications also.

¶25

It is under these circumstances, the applicants have approached this Court by filing these applications invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

¶26

Though I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Magistrate, Mr.Warunjikar urged that one more and final opportunity be given to the applicants to contest the matter on merits, or otherwise, to settle the same with the original complainants. He submitted that there were other cases between the parties and two of them have already been settled after the applicants had paid the amounts of the cheques in question. He also submits that in one of the present three cases, some amount has already been paid to the complainant and there is every possibility of the matters being settled.

¶27

Mr.Nagi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 – ie the original complainant - states that he has no instructions in the matter and he leaves the matter to this Court.

¶28

In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances and keeping in mind that these applications are not opposed by the counsel for the original complainant for want of instructions to do so, the applicants may be granted one more and final opportunity either to contest the matter on merits or to settle the same with the original complainant as per the desire expressed by the learned counsel for

¶29

4/4 APL62.63.64 OF 2011

¶30

the applicants. Needless to say that the applicants should be made to pay appropriate costs in that regard.

¶31

On the applicants undertaking to deposit costs of Rs.10,000/in each of these cases within a period of two weeks from today, the applications are allowed.

¶32

Applications are allowed in terms of respective prayer clauses (a).

¶33

The learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law and expeditiously.

¶34

Mr.Warunjikar, learned counsel for the applicants agrees that the applicants shall not seek any further adjournment before the Magistrate, save and except for unforeseen and unexpected circumstances arising and for exceptional reasons.

¶35

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY,J )

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Major Metal Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Major Metal 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

Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashwinbhai Abhabhai Ashwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Beri Mercurio Ltd. and Anr.

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Major Metals Ltd. and Anr.

Vee Pee Solders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Major Metal Ltd. and Anr.