Urvil Akshaya Jani v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected multiple criminal applications challenging CNIs under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held that allegations of malafides regarding the initiation of CIRP are matters for trial and do not warrant interim relief, dismissing the applications.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Applications rejected and disposed of; interim relief extended for four weeks.
What the court decided
Ethape 2-APL-121-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 122 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2022 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2022
Urvil Akshaya Jani ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Akshay Patil a/w Mr. Umesh Wayadande a/w Mr. Rajesh Devgharkar a/w Ms. Pallavi Kamble a/w Ms. Neha Patil a/w Meghnesh Birwadkar i/by Mr. Akshay Vijay Kamble, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Maitrey G. Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
Digitally signed by DNYANESHWAR DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE ASHOK ETHAPE Date: 2022.10.18 19:56:05 +0530
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 3rd AUGUST, 2022.
PER COURT:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is applicable when a company is under a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Whether the applicant, as a director, is liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Whether the complaints filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax are maintainable given allegations of malafides regarding the insolvency petition.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Urvil Akshaya Jani
- respondent
State Of Maharashtra
- respondent
Respondent No.2
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court