Allowed

M. J. Financial Services v. Thinking Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2019APPA/1002/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal application seeking substituted service of summons on an accused in a cheque dishour appeal. The notice returned unserved at the address provided, establishing a case for publication and affixation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to serve the accused by affixing copy of summons on conspicuous places in the Court house and the accused’s last residence, and by publishing in a local daily.

M. J. Financial Services Vs Thinking Machines Pvt… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

10- Appa 1002 of 2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1002 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 413 OF 2018

¶6

M.J. Financial Services ...APPLICANT /

¶7

ORG.APPELLANT

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Thinking Machines Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Sanjay K. Gunjkar i/b. Niranjan Shimpi, Advocate for the Applicant/Org. Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶12

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 28,2019

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This is an application for ordering the substituted service on Respondent No.3/Original Accused No.4 viz. Sanjay Devdatta Sharma.

¶15

It is seen that the complaint for the offence punishable

¶16

10- Appa 1002 of 2019.doc

¶17

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be allowed and Respondent No.3/ Original Accused No.4 along with co-accused persons came to be convicted and sentenced. They carried the said judgment in appeal before the Sessions Court and the said appeal came to be allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. Hence, this appeal, which is already admitted by this Court on 20^th March, 2018.

¶18

As Respondent No.3/ Original Accused No.4 could not be served, the present criminal application is filed in the said appeal for effecting substituted service.

¶19

Perusal of the record, shows that Respondent No.3/Original Accused No.4 had given their same address on which the service sought to be effected in this appeal. However, the notice, sent on the address given by Respondent No.3, returned back unserved. Hence, case for the substituted service is made out by the Applicant. Therefore, the following order:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(A) Criminal Application No. 1002 of 2019 is allowed.

¶22

10- Appa 1002 of 2019.doc

¶23

(B) The Applicant /Appellant is permitted to serve Respondent No.3/ Original Accused No.4 by affixing copy of summon on some conspicuous place in the Court house and also upon some conspicuous part of the house in which he last resided. Similarly, the same be published in a local daily, having wide circulation in Nasik City.

¶24

¶25

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶26

Tikam

M. J. Financial Services v. Thinking Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. J. Financial Services v. Thinking Machines 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukaram Devaram Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Ashok Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Hasumali Abdulali Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharif Shaha Samsher Shaha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aditya Sham Chaturvedi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Ravindra Dudhagi Vs the State of Maharashtra