Allowed

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive v. Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji Adballe and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2022APPLN/1645/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for permission to withdraw Rs.35,000 deposited as security in a cheque dishonour proceeding. The Court imposed a condition that the amount must be refunded within fifteen days if the impugned judgments are reversed. This order is findable for cases involving withdrawal of deposits conditioned on the outcome of pending revisions.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw Rs.35,000 subject to undertaking to refund within 15 days if impugned orders are reversed.

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive Vs Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

951-appln-1645-2018.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1645 OF 2018
IN REVN/273/2016 WITH REVN/273/2016

¶5

SANJAY S/O. BHIWAJI BHINGARDIVE
VERSUS
DATTATRAYA S/O. TANAJI ADBALLE AND ANR

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Moinpasha Shaikh Farid h/f Mr. Kanade
Angad L
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sandanshiv

¶7

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶8

 DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2022

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1.The present applicant/complainant has filed this

¶11

application for permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.35,000/-
deposited by the petitioner/present non-applicant before the learned

¶12

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar in S.T.C.C No.1682 of
2012 as per the order of this Court.

¶13

2.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that two

¶14

Courts consequently accepted the case of the applicant. Prima facie,
the applicant has proved that he is entitled to withdraw the amount.
Hence, the amount may be released to him.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the accused/revisional petitioner
would submit that the applicant has a strong case on merit. If he

¶16

951-appln-1645-2018.odt

¶17

(2)

¶18

would succeed in the revision, the complainant may not be in a
position to refund money. Hence, conditions may be imposed.

¶19

4.No doubt, two Courts held the revisional
petitioner/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it can be said that
the applicant is entitled to recover the amount. The apprehension of
the revisional petitioner can be protected by imposing reasonable
condition. Hence, the following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

I) Application is allowed.

¶22

II)Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar to release

¶23

the amount of Rs.35,000/- deposited with it as per order of this Court
on 03.01.2017, on the undertaking that he shall refund the amount
within fifteen days in the event of reversal of the judgments and
orders impugned before this Court.

¶24

 (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶25

Mujaheed//

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive v. Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji Adballe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O. Bhiwaji Bhingardive v. Dattatraya S/O. Tanaji Adballe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Chainya S/O. Thakarsha Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindhar Goroba Jawle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Chandrakant Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pooja W/O. Nivrutti Gaikwad Vs Nivrutti S/O. Hiraman Gaikwad

Virendra S/O Satish @ Sopanrao Kanoji Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Rajabhau Jagtap Vs Dastgir Jilani Shaikh and Others