Partly allowed

Jai Pratap Maniar and Anr. v. Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2022WP/327/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenges an order allowing the complainant to add petitioners as accused after the death of the original Managing Director. The court held the order was mechanically passed, set it aside, and permitted the trial court to decide afresh on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. Petitioners permitted to file reply within four weeks. The trial court shall decide the application at Exhibit-44 afresh on its own merits.

Jai Pratap Maniar and Anr. Vs Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1-wp-327-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2017

¶3

Jai Pratap Maniar and anr.

¶4

…Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia and anr.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. Jatin P. Shah a/w Ms. Snehankita Munj a/w Shraddhav Kamble for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21 July 2022.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This Petition takes exception to the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai below Exhibit-44 in Criminal Case No. 3115/SS/2007.

¶13

The Respondent No. 1 herein has filed a complaint case against Napha Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. (for short Company) and it’s Managing Director Shri Pratap H. Maniar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. During the pendency of the said complaint on 24.02.2016 Managing Director Shri Maniar expired, the Respondent No. 1, thus, moved an

MJ Jadhav

1 / 2

1-wp-327-17.odt

application under Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. to allow them to bring on record the present Petitioners, who are sons of Pratap Maniar and looking after the affairs of the Company, as representatives of the Company. The said application at Exhibit-44 came to be allowed by the order impugned.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The trial Court allowed the said application at Exhibit-44 by one line order ‘No say filed, hence it is allowed’.

¶19

In my view, considering the facts and circumstances the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application mechanically. It further appears that the trial Court directed the Respondent No. 1 to add the Petitioners as accused.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. Petitioners are permitted to file reply to the application at Exhibit-44 within four weeks from today. The trial Court thereafter shall decide the application at Exhibit-44 afresh on its own merits.

¶21

The Petition is disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶22

MJ Jadhav

¶23

2 / 2

Jai Pratap Maniar and Anr. v. Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pratap Maniar and Anr. v. Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia 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

Harpreet Singh Anand and Anr. Vs Rajiv Raman Gangwani and Anr.

Ram Das Maneklal Gandhi Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Parvej Rafiq Shikalgar Vs Shri. Murud Madatali Patel and Anr.

Anil Premchand Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jai Pratap Maniar and Anr. Vs Arvind Laxmidas Kapadia and Anr.

Raju Ismail Beg Vs the State of Maharashtra