Partly allowed

M/S Prem Industries and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2021WP/6148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the Single Judge rejected writ petitions challenging an order directing deposit of 50% compensation under Section 148 NI Act. The order was modified conditionally upon petitioners assuring deposit by 1st March 2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions rejected with modification; orders modified to allow deposit of 50% compensation within two months subject to undertaking.

M/S Prem Industries and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

14 & 15 & 16-WP -6131; 6144; 6148-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Writ Petition No. 6131 / 2021 Alongwith Writ Petition No. 6144 / 2021 And

¶4

Writ Petition No. 6148 / 2021

¶5

M/s Prem Industries and Anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey a/w Arvind Tiwari a/w Mr. Gaurav Pandey a/w Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. J.S. Kini a/w Shweta Jain i/by Ms. Sapna Krishnappa, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. A.D. Khamkhedkar, APP for State in WP-6131/2021. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, APP for State in WP-6144/2021.

¶12

Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for State in WP-6148/2021.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 22^nd DECEMBER,2021.

¶15

P.C. : -

¶16

1. That in exercise of the powers under Section 148 of

¶17

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the learned

¶18

Najeeb.. 1/3

¶19

14 & 15 & 16-WP -6131; 6144; 6148-2021.doc

¶20

Appellate Court directed the Petitioners-Appellants to deposit 50% of amount of the compensation, awarded by the trial Court.

¶21

Feeling aggrieved by that orders, these petitioners are preferred.

¶22

Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶23

The learned Judge, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, directed the Petitioners to deposit amount of compensation, in excess of 20% for the reasons, provided therefore. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, petitions are rejected. However, on an assurance by the Petitioners, that they shall deposit 50% of the compensation in the trial Court within two months from today i.e. on or before 1^st March, 2022, the impugned orders stand modified only to that extend.

¶24

Najeeb.. 2/3

¶25

14 & 15 & 16-WP -6131; 6144; 6148-2021.doc

¶26

5. Petitioner shall file undertaking in terms of the assurance in this Court within two weeks from today.

¶27

Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEB MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date:2021.12.23 18:02:02 +0530

¶30

3/3

¶31

Najeeb..

M/S Prem Industries and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prem Industries and Anr. v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Doulatram Rajpal Vs Ram Doulatram Rajpal and Anr.

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. Vs Sai Kripa Stationer, Nashik through the Prop. Raj Jyoti Uttam Singh and Ors.

Manish Arjun Kshatriya and Anr. Vs Arjun Laxman Kshatriya and Anr.

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abc Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.