Kushal Kawaduji Singanjude v. Ramnarayan Durgaprasad Agrawal (Kejadiwal)

Bombay HC25 Jan 2021APPA/201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a Criminal Application (Appa) challenging a cheque dishonour case. The applicant argued the cheque was issued for illegal consideration involving job procurement in public service. Relying on the Indian Contract Act and a coordinate bench decision, the court held the agreement void and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected and Appeal dismissed as no case for leave was made.

Kushal Kawaduji Singanjude Vs Ramnarayan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

2501appa201.18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 201 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2018

¶5

(Kushal Kawaduji Singanjude vs. Ramnarayan Durgaprasad Agrawal (Kejadiwal)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Shri P.K. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Y.G. Maheshwari, Advocate for the non-
applicant.

¶8

CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

¶9

JANUARY 25, 2021.

¶10

Heard Shri Mohta, learned counsel for
the applicant and Shri Maheshwari, learned Advocate
for the non-applicant.

¶11

2.The Criminal Appeal challenges the
judgment of acquittal of the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter
referred to as N.I. Act), passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mouda, in Summary Criminal
Case No. 138 of 2011. The ground for acquitting the
respondent is that the appellant has failed to prove
the legally recoverable debt against the respondent.
The appellant/ complainant states that the appellant

¶12

¶13

2501appa201.18

¶14

gave Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh) to the respondent
for securing job in Apang Niwasi Vidyalaya,
Bhandara. Accordingly, job was secured and the
appellant has been given appointment letter. As the
salary of the appellant was withheld, the appellant
approached the respondent for refund of money. The
respondent issued cheque of Rs. Five lakh, which
came to be dishonoured and hence, the complainant
filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶15

3.This Court in similarly situated facts, in
the case of Suhas s/o Bhanudas Jadhav vs. Sachin
s/o Murlidhar Tarkase & Anr., reported at (2016) 1
Mah. LJ 492, in paragraph 9, held as under :

¶16

“It cannot be said that when such act is
unlawful in public service it would be lawful
in private sector. Such acts are not in
interest of society. No employer would
appoint a person whom he will give salary if
he is not competent. His Subordinates
cannot indulge in such acts at the costs of
the Employer. It is trite to suggest that a
Manager who without letting Company
know makes money while making
appointments does not indulge in unlawful

¶17

¶18

2501appa201.18

¶19

act. This cannot be in interest of public life
in society. It would be against public policy.”

¶20

4.Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
speaks about what consideration and objects are
lawful and what not. The illustration (f) of Section
23 of the Indian Contract Act, reads as under :

¶21

“(f) A promises to obtain for a B an
employment in the public service, and B
promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The
agreement is void, as the consideration for it
is unlawful.”

¶22

5.In the opinion of this Court, as the initial
agreement itself is void for want of lawful
consideration and object of the agreement and the
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court is
squarely applicable to the facts of this case, no case
for leave is made. Hence, application is rejected.
Consequently, Appeal is also rejected.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

*GS.

Kushal Kawaduji Singanjude v. Ramnarayan Durgaprasad Agrawal (Kejadiwal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushal Kawaduji Singanjude v. Ramnarayan Durgaprasad Agrawal (Kejadiwal)

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

Abdul Malik S/O Abdul Razzaque Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station, A.T.S. Mumbai, Mumbai

Rajesh S/O. Dharamchand Jain (Nahar) Vs Sau. Jayashree Arvind Kadam

M/S. Shree Gajanan Construction Company Thr Its Partner Shri. Vilas Sontakke Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Shirpur, Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal and 3 Others

The State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal Vs Arun S/O Vasantrao Meshram

Ajay Bhaskar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Gadge Nagar Eow Amravati

Rajiyabi Sheikh Chand Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Digras, Tah. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others