Partly allowed

Tejas Upendra Parekh v. M/S. Ratnadeep Steel Traders and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2019WP/4110/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Writ Petition challenging the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and seeking cancellation of a Non-Bailable Warrant. The single-judge bench refused to interfere with the issuance of process but cancelled the N.B.W. and directed appearance.

What did the court decide?

The order of issuance of process was affirmed; the order of Non-Bailable Warrant was cancelled. The petitioner was directed to appear on 05/07/2019.

Tejas Upendra Parekh Vs M/S. Ratnadeep Steel Traders and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

903.WP4110_2016.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2016

¶5

Tejas Upendra Parekh … Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

M/s. Ratnadeep Steel Traders & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Ms. Purvi Shah a/w. Mr. Ashok Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mittal P. Vira h/f. P.N. Vira, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 9^th April, 2019

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Writ Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission.

¶12

Leave to amend the prayer. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

In this Writ Petition, the order dated 25^th October, 2016 of issuance of process under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 6334/SS/2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bellard Pier, Mumbai is challenged.

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

903.WP4110_2016.doc

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the challenge is given to the order of issuance of process on the ground that endorsement on the impugned cheque shows that it is void because it was presented after three months and therefore, the cheque was not honoured. She further pointed out that the memo issued by Union Bank of India giving reason of dishonouring the cheque “funds insufficient” is not a signed memo by the officer of the Union Bank of India. The memo appears suspicious so also there is no entry in her statement of account of Punjab and Sind Bank showing that the cheque was persented.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this prayer in the Writ Petition.

¶18

Considered the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused cannot be appreciated at the stage of issuance of process or at the stage of trial. Hence, I do not find any good ground to say that the order of issuance of process is illegal. No interference is required in the order of issuance of process.

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

903.WP4110_2016.doc

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner has moved the Application for exemption on 28^th March, 2019, as the daughter of the petitioner/accused was hospitalized. The said Application was rejected and the advocate representing the petitioner/accused was not having instructions about recording of plea, however, Non-bailable warrant was issued.

¶22

The order of Non-bailable warrant is hereby cancelled. The petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 5^th July, 2019 at 11 a.m. without fail.

¶23

Writ Petition is dismissed in respect of issuance of process, however, the prayer of cancellation of NBW is allowed.

¶24

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶25

3 of 3

Tejas Upendra Parekh v. M/S. Ratnadeep Steel Traders and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Upendra Parekh v. M/S. Ratnadeep Steel Traders 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

Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Narendra Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praful Shankarrao Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praful Shankarrao Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhukar Devba Patil Vs Padmabhushan Vasantadada Patil and Anr.