Allowed

Anand S. Shah v. M/S. Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013WP/900/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged issuance of process under Section 138 NI Act, arguing he had resigned as Director years prior to the transaction and did not draw the cheque. The court held the complaint failed to aver individual liability despite the statutory notice, quashing the process in his favor.

What did the court decide?

Process issued against the petitioner in writ petitions WP895/13, WP898/13, WP899/13, WP900/13, and WP901/13 was quashed and set aside.

Anand S. Shah Vs M/S. Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 WP895/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.895 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.898 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.899 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 2013

¶5

Mr Anand S. Shah

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

v/s

¶8

M/s Samrat Wires Pvt.Ltd. and anr....Respondents

¶9

Mr Javed Dorajiwala i/b M/s MZM Legal for
Petitioner.

¶10

Mr B.K. Rai i/b Mr S.S. Rai for Respondent No.1.
Mr A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶12

DATED : 24TH JULY 2013.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1.Heard. By these five writ petitions, the

¶15

petitioner questions issuance of process in five

¶16

complaint petitions for offence under section 138

¶17

of Negotiable Instruments Act 1988. The grievance

¶18

is that the petitioner has resigned as a Director

¶19

vrd 2 WP895/13

¶20

on 4th October 2002 while the transaction in

¶21

question was virtually ten years thereafter.

¶22

2.Thelearnedcounselfor original

¶23

complainant says, the writ petitioner has

¶24

communication by e-mails on several occasions with
original complainant and hence liable. Another
submission is that on the cheque, it was noticed
that one of the drawer is Mr Shah and hence

¶25

complainant genuinely presumed it to be writ
petitioner.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for petitioner informs
that the cheque is drawn by one Mr C.P. Shah and Mr
Arvind Oberoi (original accused No.3), however, it
is not drawn by writ petitioner – Anand Shah.

¶27

4.In the complaint petitions, for offence

¶28

under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
the pre-requisite is, to show individual role
played by the accused therein to fasten liability.

¶29

If the accused is a Director, it is imperative to
show his active participation or communication.

¶30

vrd 3 WP895/13

¶31

These basic ingredients are missing in the
complaint petitions. Sending statutory notice upon
the petitioner and his not claiming the same will
not obliterate basic responsibility of the
complainant to make necessary averments. The
process therefore calls for interference. It is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Writ

¶32

petitions are allowed to the extent as above.

¶33

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Anand S. Shah v. M/S. Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand S. Shah v. M/S. Samrat Wires 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

Shri Popatlal Chunilal Gandhi. Vs Shri Shantaram Vaman Khamkar and Anr.

Vikasini Narendra Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devichand Uttamchand Surana Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand S. Shah Vs M/S Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Anadn S. Shah Vs M/S. Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Anand S. Shah Vs M/S. Samrat Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.