Dismissed

M/S Star Rays through Its Constituted Attorney Vijay Meganlal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2018APPLN/112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal appellate jurisdiction bench rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a leave to appeal under the NI Act. The court held that the applicant failed to prosecute the original complaint and thus could not establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; criminal application for leave to appeal dismissed.

M/S Star Rays through Its Constituted Attorney Vijay… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(903)APPLNNo.1122016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2016

¶5

M/s.Star Rays ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Ms.Bindal K. Bhatia i/b. Mr.Kishor N. Bhatia, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶9

DATED : 25^th OCTOBER 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 This is an application for condonation of delay of about four years and 328 days in preferring application for leave to appeal in challenging dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 preferred by the applicant.

¶12

2 Heard the learned Counsel appearing fort the applicant. She argued that after filing of the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, the precess

1/3

Gaikwad RD

(903)APPLNNo.1122016

was issued on 18/09/2007 and the case was fixed for recording plea of the accused persons. She further argued that the applicant presumes that the said complaint tagged with another complaint filed by the applicant. The other complaint was pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is further argued that because of mis-understanding in taking the dates in the matter, the applicant could not attend the dates for hearing. It is further argued that in the light of the Judgment in the matter of Dashrathsing Roopsing Rathod v. the State of Maharashtram, the applicant/accused went to the Court for collecting the complaint for presenting the same before the proper Court. At that time, it was learnt that the subject criminal complaint was dismissed. This, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, amounts to sufficient cause and, therefore, delay needs to be condoned.

¶17

3 Quantum of delay is not material, but what is material is showing of sufficient cause. Want of due care and attention cannot be termed as bona fide conduct on the part of the applicant. In the case in hand, the applicant never care to prosecute the subject criminal complaint. It was ultimately dismissed on 10/01/2011 by resorting to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was not even knowing of this fact of dismissal of the complaint as the applicant never cared to prosecute it. There is no justification

2/3

Gaikwad RD

(903)APPLNNo.1122016

reflecting sufficient cause for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of about four years and 328 days in filing an application for leave to appeal. The application, as such, is devoid of merit. Therefore, the Order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The Application is rejected.

¶24

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶25

3/3

¶26

Gaikwad RD

M/S Star Rays through Its Constituted Attorney Vijay Meganlal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Star Rays through Its Constituted Attorney Vijay Meganlal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netaji Dadarao Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Irfan Jabbar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Jaikumar Vithal Gonagi Vs Mr.Sambanna R. Mandira and Anr.

Dipak Ramchandra Mane Vs Rajkumar Ganpati Shinde and Anr.

Lalit Puroshottam Shewale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Premnath Vitthal Shelke Vs Arjun Pandurang Gurav and Anr.