Allowed

M/S. Sainik Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. v. Tanaji Sahaji Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2012APPLN/753/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Bombay granted leave to the applicant credit society to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The bench ruled that the lower court required re-examination of causation regarding interest recovery via a cheque.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against acquittal was granted. Call for R.P. to follow.

M/S. Sainik Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs Tanaji Sahaji… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 APPLN-753.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE � CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2011

¶3

Sainik Co-op. Credit Society
Ltd., Aravade.... Applicant
Vs.
Tanaji Sahaji Patil & Anr..... Respondents

¶4

Shri Vikas M. Mali for the Applicant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP, for the State.

¶5

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶6

DATED: JANUARY 11, 2012

¶7

P.C:

¶8

This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the first respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tasgaon, District Sangli, holding that the complainant-Society was not entitled to recover 34,000/- with interest, that is in all 43,000/- which was evidenced by the cheque in question. Since the complainant had appropriated a sum of 3,000/- out of advance of 34,000/- as deposit, the learned counsel for the applicant points out that 3,000/- which has been diverted towards a`

¶9

2 APPLN-753.11

¶10

fixed deposit attracts interest which is payable to the accused on his deposit and therefore there is nothing wrong in the applicant�s charing interest on the advance of 34,000/- made and therefore there is nothing wrong in taking cheque for 43,000/-. The causation of the learned Magistrate would require a re-examination. Hence leave granted. Appeal admitted. Call for the R & P.. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow. Action under Section 390 means that

¶11

the learned Magistrate may cause the accused to
be produced before him by appropriate process
and take security from them for their
appearance in the Appellate Court. If the
accused appear on their own, the learned
Magistrate need not wait for the process to be
issued or served upon the accused but shall
admit them to such bail as he may deem fit.

¶12

The application accordingly stands
disposed.

M/S. Sainik Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. v. Tanaji Sahaji Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sainik Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. v. Tanaji Sahaji Patil 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

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

Gorakhanth Sukhdev Patil Vs Rajendra Appaso Patil and Anr.

M/S. Sainik Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs Tanaji Sahaji Patil and Anr.

Gorakhanth Sukhdev Patil Vs Rajendra Appaso Patil and Anr.