Allowed

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2019APL/16/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a Criminal Application challenging an appeal order under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court ruled that the appeal can be decided on merits in the absence of the applicants and set aside the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 3rd January 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside; Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

p509-apl-16-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2019

¶4

Stonemann Royale Ltd.& Anr. ...Applicants Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms.Mallika Ajay Ingale a/w. Mr.Rushit P. Thakkar for the Applicants. Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent No.1 -State.

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 09 JANUARY 2019

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Upon urgent mentioning, taken on production board.

¶10

In this Criminal Application, the order dated 3^rd January, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2014 is challenged.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants has submitted that this Application can be disposed of without giving notice to the other side in view of the nature of the prayers. The Appeal is preferred against the order of conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. She further submits that the presence of the applicants/appellants is not required and the Appeal can be heard and disposed of. In support of her submissions, she has relied on the following judgments :

¶12

Trupti Page 1 of 2

¶13

p509-apl-16-19.doc

¶14

(a) Dharam Pal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P . reported in

¶15

MANU/SC/7075/2008 ;

¶16

(b) Bani Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P . reported in MANU/SC/0615/1996 .

¶17

She has informed that now the matter is fixed before the Sessions Court on 23^rd January, 2019.

¶18

The learned APP while supporting the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, has opposed this Application.

¶19

The submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶20

applicants/appellants are correct. The Appeal can be decided on merits in absence of the applicants/ appellants. Hence, the order dated 3^rd January, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Greater Bombay is hereby set aside.

¶21

Criminal Application is allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶23

Trupti Page 2 of 2

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sailesh Sreeramulu and Anr. Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Sailesh Sreeramulu and Anr. Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Abdul Rahim Haji Nasir Shekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balbhim Namdev Bhange Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manish B. Jain and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manaal Sayed Mukhtar Ali Vs Sayed Mukhtar Ali and Ors.