Allowed

Hiralal Tekchand Valecha v. Lal Vijaykumar Lalwani and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Nov 2014WP/4552/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Sessions Court's rejection of his application for stay in a cheque bouncing case. The Court noted that issuing a revision notice indicated the Sessions Court's intent to examine the order, making a stay necessary to prevent the revision from becoming infructuous. A stay was directed until the revision is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Stay on proceedings in the lower court and direction to the Court of Sessions at Kalyan to dispose of the revision application by 31.12.2014.

Hiralal Tekchand Valecha Vs Lal Vijaykumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

927_wp_4552_2014.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4552 OF 2014

¶3

Mr. Hiralal Tekchand Valecha .... Petitioner Vs.

¶4

Mr. Lal Vijaykumar Lalwani & Anr. .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, for the Petitioner Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶6

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶7

DATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner (original accused) in a cheque bouncing case assails the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Revision Application of not granting ad-interim stay and only issuing the notice. It is his contention that issuance of notice upon revision application by Court of Sessions denotes that Court of Sessions has decided to exercise powers in revision. It is further canvassed having regard to it, not granting of stay and in the meanwhile if the trial is proceeded then application for revision would become infructious. It is submitted that the Applicant is not interested in protracting the proceeding either before the Trial Court or even before the Court of Sessions and is ready to go with it as

¶10

Megha 1 of 3

¶11

927_wp_4552_2014.doc

¶12

ordered by this Court. It is submitted that for serving the ends of justice appropriate directions may be given.

¶13

The Petitioner (original accused) has preferred an application before the Trial Court for sending the dishonoured cheque and other receipts tendered for examination by handwriting expert. He has presented said application after commencement of defence evidence. It is the contention of the Petitioner that making of such application was necessitated due to the original complainant having disputed the signature upon the two receipts being in his handwriting, but having admitted the writing on a cheque being in his handwriting. It is contended that it is the defence of the Petitioner that the complainant had issued said receipts in token of the payment received. It is submitted that the Petitioner could not have made the application earlier until he was called upon to enter upon his defence. It is submitted that in event of the relevant evidence having remained adduced, the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss at trial.

¶14

Leaving aside the submissions about the merits of the case made by the Petitioner, the act of Court of Sessions issuing notice upon an application in revision denotes the Sessions Court having felt need for examining the legality, correctness and propriety of an order Megha 2 of 3

¶15

927_wp_4552_2014.doc

¶16

rejecting the application preferred by the Applicant. Having regard to it non-granting of a stay to the proceeding before the Trial Court is bound to result in rendering an application in revision infructuous. Having regard to it and taking into consideration the act of issuing notice by Court of Sessions and keeping in mind that the subject matter of case pertains to bouncing of cheque, it appears it would be proper to dispose of this petition by directing the Court of Sessions at Kalyan seized with Criminal Revision Application No.217 of 2014 to dispose it on or before 31.12.2014 for serving the ends of justice.

¶17

In facts and circumstances of this case it does not appear

¶18

that this is a fit case for not granting stay of the order impugned and of which the revision was sought.

¶19

Hence, there shall be stay to the proceedings in the lower

¶20

court till then. Petitioner on his part shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of application in revision, as ordered.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Megha 3 of 3

Hiralal Tekchand Valecha v. Lal Vijaykumar Lalwani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Tekchand Valecha v. Lal Vijaykumar Lalwani 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

Krishna Vasudev Kudnekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Pundlik Gawde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Rajaram Farakate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Bansilal Ghayawal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lokesh Parshuram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Sankarlal Jagetia Vs the State of Maharashtra