Dismissed

Ayub Mohd. Nabijaan R. Shaikh v. Avinash Parshuram Jagtap and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2021WP/805/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging a trial court's refusal to order the complainant to produce income tax returns and bank statements beyond the relevant period. The High Court held no interference was called for as the TC correctly rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the trial court's interim order in CC No. 5611259/SS/2019 was dismissed.

Ayub Mohd. Nabijaan R. Shaikh Vs Avinash Parshuram Jagtap… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

29.WP-805-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Writ Petition No. 805 / 2020

¶4

Ayub Mohd. Nabijaan R. Shaikh .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus.

¶6

Avinash Parshuram Jagtap and Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra a/w Mr. Gaurav Thote i/by Pratima Rathi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pravin H. Padave a/w Ms. Shobana R. Waghmare, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for State.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 14^th SEPTEMBER,2021.

¶12

P.C. : -

¶13

Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

This petition under Article 227 of the

¶15

Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 1^st February, 2020 in Criminal Complaint No. 5611259/SS/ 2019, instituted by the Respondent No.1 (complaint) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act

¶16

Najeeb.. 1/3

¶17

29.WP-805-2020.doc

¶18

against the Petitioner-accused. Cheques issued by the Petitioner, allegedly in the discharge of legally enforceable dues, being hand-loan given by the Complainant to the accused, during January,2015 to May,2016 were returned unpaid. It seems that, accused aknowledge the ‘debt’ in M.O.U. executed by and between the parties. Be that as it may, the Complainant has relied on and produced fourteen documents in support of the complaint, including the Income Tax Returns for the period of 2015-16 and 2016-17. These facts are not in dispute.

¶19

In the backdrop of admitted facts, it may be stated that in cross-examination, the Complainant deposed that he had filed Income Tax Return since 2011-12 onwards till date; except for the year 2014. Pending cross-examination, the accused moved an application below Exhibit-25, seeking directions to the Complainant to produce his Income Tax Returns and bank statements for the period, 2011 till 2020. The learned trial Court rejected the said

¶20

Najeeb.. 2/3

¶21

29.WP-805-2020.doc

¶22

application, and thus this petition.

¶23

I have perused the complaint, evidence and the affidavit-in-reply of the Complainant. Admittedly, the alleged hand-loan was given to the accused during the period, January,2015 to May,2016 and the Tax Returns for this period, are placed on record by the Complainant. Therefore, seeking directions to the Complainant to produce all Tax Returns and Bank Statements from the Assessment Year 2011-12 till 2020-2021, were neither necessary, nor desirable for the purposes of trial.

¶24

In consideration of these facts, in my view, the learned trial Court has not committed an error in exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting his application below Exhibit-25. As a consequence, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶25

Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶26

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEB MOHAMMAD Najeeb.. MOHAMMADQAYYUM QAYYUMDate: 3/3 2021.09.14 17:47:38 +0530

Ayub Mohd. Nabijaan R. Shaikh v. Avinash Parshuram Jagtap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Mohd. Nabijaan R. Shaikh v. Avinash Parshuram Jagtap 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

Malti J. Soni Vs Balasheb Amale @ Babasaheb Amle Alias Kunal Kondiba Amale and Anr.

Malti J. Soni Vs Balasheb Amale @ Babasaheb Amle Alias Kunal Kondiba Amale and Anr.

Bhavin J. Soni Vs Balasheb Amale @ Babasaheb Amle Alias Kunal Kondiba Amale and Anr.

Adarsha Nagesh Konchikorve and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatraya Mahadeo Batule Vs Chandrakant v. Tikule and Ors.

Adarsh Shankar Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.