Allowed

Shwetali Madhukar Mulik v. Reliance Capital Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2013WP/907/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed alia进行管理 of Criminal Writ Petitions challenging Section 138 NI Act proceedings. The petitioners claimed they resigned as directors before the cheque dates. The court allowed both petitions, quashed and set aside the process issued against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions allowed. Process issued against the petitioner quashed and set aside.

Shwetali Madhukar Mulik Vs Reliance Capital Limited and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

wp1701-907-13.sxw

1/2

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1701 OF 2013 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.907 OF 2013

¶7

Ms.Shwetali Madhukar Mulik …Petitioner versus 1.Reliance Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Kushal Mor, for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Amol Arote i/b. Goenka Law Associates, for Respondent no.1.

¶10

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

¶11

--- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 2^nd AUGUST, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Learned Counsel for respondent has filed power and tendered affidavit in reply also.

¶14

Heard. The petitioner claims to be a Director of original accused no.1 Sealand Container Lines (India) Pvt.Ltd., has been prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was basically a loan transaction. In discharge of the liability, cheques were issued, these cheques were dishonoured followed by statutory notice. The petitioner-Smt.Shwetali says, she has resigned as a Director which has been in force with effect from 22.2.2010. Certified copy of Form 32 issued from

wp1701-907-13.sxw

2/2

Pvr

the Registrar of Companies dated 11.3.2013 is tendered. The cheques in question in both the matters are dated 2.4.2011 and 4.2.2011. These cheques are apparently after her resignation and its acceptance.

¶19

Learned Counsel for complainant says, in a reply dated 5.5.2011 to the statutory notice she has admitted her liability. However, a question mark is put to the signature of the applicant to said communication. The learned Counsel then says that a rejoinder was sent after the reply, vide rejoinder dated June 16, 2011 incorporating that the petitioner/applicant had jointly approached the financer/complainant and executed loan document availing loan facility. Albeit this document could be accepted provided it is referred in complaint petition. But the complaint petition deals with only serving statutory notice and reply which is referred to dated 16.6.2011, while the reply purportedly of the applicant is dated 5.5.2011.

¶20

The conspectus of all the facts warrants for interference in the process issued by the learned Judge. Both the petitions are allowed. The process issued against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

Shwetali Madhukar Mulik v. Reliance Capital Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shwetali Madhukar Mulik v. Reliance Capital Limited 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

Prakash Anadrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tapan Kumar Chakraborty Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Ganesh Anant Tantak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrashekar Dattatray Yengade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Dinesh Metal Industries Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Dinesh Metal Industries Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.