Dismissed

Sukhdev Mahadeo Khade v. Mahendra Govind Salunkhe and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2012APPLN/702/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the magistrate's view was not perverse, despite noting clarifications were needed regarding interest calculations. The acquittal was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal refused; application disposed of.

Sukhdev Mahadeo Khade Vs Mahendra Govind Salunkhe and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1Appln 702-11.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.702 OF 2011

¶5

Sukhadeo Mahadeo Khade.Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Mahendra Govind Salunkhe & anr..Respondents

¶8

Mr.G.K.Jadhav, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State

¶9

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:10TH JANUARY, 2012

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶12

respective parties.

¶13

2.This is an application for leave to

¶14

file an appeal against acquittal of respondent

¶15

No.1 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶16

Court No.62, Dadar, for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

¶17

Act, 1881. The applicant claims a sum of 5,00,000/- was recoverable from the respondent`

¶18

towards which a cheque of 5,00,000/- had been`

¶19

2Appln 702-11.odt

¶20

issued. In fact, the respondent had paid to the applicant a sum of 7,50,000/- out of deposit of 10,00,000/-. According to the applicant,

¶21

still a sum of 5,00,000/- was due and`

¶22

recoverable because the respondent was also to
pay interest on the amount of deposit and this
had been specifically stated in para 3. Now, if
interest was to be paid, interest would have to
be calculated at some rate from a particular
date to a particular date. All this has not
been clarified. View taken on this count,
therefore, cannot be faulted though the learned
Magistrate may have erred in holding that the
complaint was not tenable for failure to serve

¶23

the notice of demand. Since even in the absence
of the service of notice of demand, complaint
could have been entertained in view of the
observations of the Supreme Court in C.C.ALAVI

¶24

HAJI Versus PALAPETTY MUHAMMED AND ANOTHER,

¶25

reported at (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 555.

¶26

3Appln 702-11.odt

¶27

3.In view of this, since view taken by

¶28

the learned Magistrate was not perverse or
improbable, leave refused. Appeal dismissed.

¶29

4.Criminal Application stands disposed

¶30

of.

Sukhdev Mahadeo Khade v. Mahendra Govind Salunkhe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Mahadeo Khade v. Mahendra Govind Salunkhe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant Bhujangrao Patil Vs Tukaram Namdeo Suryavanshi and Anr.

Suryakant Bhujangrao Patil Vs Tukaram Namdeo Suryavanshi and Anr.

Mohammad Sajid Abdul Majid Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Shahaji Pandurang Patil and Anr.

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Shahaji Pandurang Patil and Anr.

Vijay Bhimrao Bharsangde Vs the State of Maharashtra