Dismissed

Neeraj Nagorao Karhade v. Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2013APL/252/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashment of proceedings and a High Court order rejecting delay condonation. The Court dismissed the application, holding the applicant failed to prove he was not a Director on the relevant date and that delay was due to his own fault.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment of proceedings and impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Neeraj Nagorao Karhade Vs Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

apl252-13.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION U/S.482 NO.252 OF 2013

¶7

Mr.Neeraj Nagorao Karhade …Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1.Brics Gilt Finance Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Adv. i/b. Ms.Sharmila Kaushik, for Applicant.

¶11

Mr.Siddharth Murarka i/b. Mr.Aviraj Tarar, for Respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for Respondent no.2-State.

¶13

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶14

DATED : 11^th July, 2013

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The learned Senior Counsel arguing the matter informs that cheque of Rs.25 lakhs was dated 14.5.2010 while the accused-applicant has resigned as nominee Director in 14.2.2010. He is USA citizen since long and has no active role to play in monetary transactions of the company with

¶18

the original accused no.1-M/s.Polycrest Innovations India Pvt.Ltd. barring a nominee Director. In order to impress that there was such resignation letter,

apl252-13.sxw

2/3

Pvr

my attention was invited to such letter dispatched by the applicant to the Managing Director of the Accused company.

¶23

The letter is dated 14.2.2010, however, there is nothing to demonstrate that any resignation has been accepted or entertained in the records of the company board. As on 17.9.2012 (page 95) the applicant is shown to be a Director in the said Company. It makes no difference whether he is ordinary Director or nominee Director or facing other capacity. The record illustrates, the company of the applicant accused having control over 46% voting of accused no.1 Company. Notice under Section 138 is dispatched which is returned unserved/unclaimed.

¶24

Other glaring aspect in the matter is, feeling aggrieved by the order of process, an application seeking to excuse delay of 528 days was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. The learned Judge, on evaluation of primary material did not find favour to condone the delay. Thus, there was an impediment under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the accused-applicant.

¶25

It is a matter of record, before the learned Judge no pleadings to explain for such inordinate delay was made though it was verbally/orally pointed out.

apl252-13.sxw

3/3

Pvr

In the present petition, the applicant - original accused no.5 has audacity to ask this Court to have acted the learned Additional Sessions Judge on such oral submissions. This submission, in the application, is a new phenomenon alien to the recognized principles of law.

¶30

Prayer clause (a) again is misleading. Quashment of entire proceedings is sought when the application is moved by the original accused no.5. It is not only quashment, even the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is sought to be quashed.

¶31

The efficacious remedy, which the applicant had, having lost due to his own fault, cannot be taken care of by virtue of discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The accused-applicant primarily could not establish

¶32

that he was not a Director on the date of issue of cheque. The application lacks merits. Dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature.

Neeraj Nagorao Karhade v. Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Nagorao Karhade v. Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. 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

Raju Vishnu Avhad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Hariram Makhija Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd. and Ors.

Anil Bhanudas Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendraprasad Ghurahu Nisha and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Restech Pharma and Anr. Vs M/S. Mumbai Pharma Chem and Anr.

Ranjit a. Ghatge Vs the State of Maharashtra