Dismissed

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2014WP/428/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Writ Petitions filed by a bank, considered petitions challenging an order quashing legal process against company directors. The court held that while the case was borderline regarding averment sufficiency, the order was not patently illegal. Consequently, the court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction not to interfere and rejected the petitio

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were rejected by the High Court without entertaining them.

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Pratham Builders… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Tilak 1/4 (11)WP-428-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.428 of 2014 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.429 of 2014 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.432 of 2014 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.433 of 2014

¶5

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Limited

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd and others .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Atul G Damle, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Vibhuti Desai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Chandana Salgaocar, Advocate for respondent nos.2,3, and 4. Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent State.

¶10

--- CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 17^th NOVEMBER 2014. ---

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 All these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the parties are the same and the issues raised are also the same.

¶13

Tilak 2/4 (11)WP-428-14

¶14

2 The petitioner had filed four complaints against the respondent nos.1 to 6 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by them. The respondent no.1 is a Private Limited Company, and the respondent nos.2 to 6, according to the petitioner, are the Directors of the said company. The learned Magistrate issued process against the respondent nos.1 to 6. The respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 herein (original accused nos.2, 5 and 6) challenged the order issuing process against them by filing an application for revision in the Court of Sessions. This revision was allowed, and the order issuing process against the respondent nos.2, 3, and 4 herein was quashed as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who decided the revision, was of the view that the averments made in the complaint against these respondents, were not sufficient to justify issuance of process against them by virtue of the provisions of section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the Sessions Court in revision, and has approached this Court by filing the present petitions invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 thereof, and the inherent powers of this Court.

¶15

3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I have carefully gone through the impugned order.

¶16

4 I have also gone through the complaint, a copy of which is annexed to the petition.

¶17

Tilak 3/4 (11)WP-428-14

¶18

5 The averments made against the Directors of the accused company i.e. respondent no.1 as found in the complaint, are as follows :-

¶19

“Accused nos.2 to 6 are Directors of the said company and looking after the day to day affairs of the partnership firm, and are responsible for the affairs of the company”

¶20

6 Except this, there are no other averments against the Directors of the accused Company i.e. respondent no.1. It may be observed that the reference to partnership firm, as made in the complaint is clearly erroneous, and actually the accused no.1 i.e. respondent no.1 is a Private Limited Company.

¶21

7 In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in details. The question that really arises is sufficiency or otherwise of this averment for the purpose of proceeding against the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 herein.

¶22

8 Significantly, this averment does not mention about the said respondents being responsible for the 'financial affairs' of the company, and therefore, the question that arises is somewhat difficult to decide. Though the entire position of law, as understood by the Addl. Sessions Judge who decided the Revision Application, and as put forth by him in the concluding paragraph of his order, does not appear to be sound or correct, I find that this is somewhat a border-line case, so to say. In this context, in the

¶23

Tilak 4/4 (11)WP-428-14

¶24

course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6 submitted that except the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, no other respondents have questioned, or shall be questioning the propriety or legality of the order issuing process against them on the ground of insufficiency of averments in the complaint.

¶25

9 This statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents is noted. In view of this statement, the respondent no.1 as also the respondent nos.5 and 6 shall be facing the prosecution initiated by the complaints in question.

¶26

10 When the matter is looked at in this context, the order passed by the Revisional Court does not seem to be so patently illegal or improper so as to invite interference for exercising constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which is of extra-ordinary nature. As such, I am not inclined to entertain the petitions.

¶27

11 Petitions are rejected.

¶28

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Pratham Builders and Developers 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

Nilesh Mahendra Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Suresh Bhambid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hiren Shantilal Kothari and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Babu Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vanita Sudhir Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr.Bhagwandas T.Vakani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.