Allowed

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai v. Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Rep. by Prabhakar Rama Gaude

Bombay HC4 Jul 2023WPCR/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court's rejection of an application to cross-examine the complainant. The High Court set aside the impugned order allowing the application, accepting the petitioner's undertaking to deposit ₹ 60,000 as security.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the application to cross-examine the complainant is set aside; the application is allowed.

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai Vs Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

911-WPCR-49-2023.DOC

¶2

Andreza

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2023

¶4

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

VPK Urban Co-operative

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J DATED: 4^th JULY 2023

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Priolkar for the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. Ramaiya for the respondents..

¶14

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 26.12.2022

¶15

passed by the trial Court disposing of an application filed by the accused under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking leave to cross examine the complainant. The application was rejected.

¶16

3. It has been observed by the trial Court in the order dated 26.12.2022 in paragraph 6 that it is not even the case of the accused that the loan has been repaid by him or that there being an altered

¶17

Page 1 of 3 4^th July 2023

¶18

911-WPCR-49-2023.DOC

¶19

situation due to which there was understanding between the parties not to present the said case. It is in this light of the matter that the trial Court observed that the ground raised by the accused has no substance. Further in paragraph 9, the reasons are stated thus :

¶20

“9. In the case at hand, I find that the defence as set out by the accused cannot be considered as the probable defence. Further, the accused had also not set out such defence at the first instance by replying the legal notice and in fact, the accused has clearly admitted his liability in the reply given to the legal notice. In the backdrop of the above discussion, I pass the following: …...The application is rejected.”

¶21

4. In the application from paragraphs 4 to 6 onwards, the applicant has given the reasons why such a cross examination of the complainant is necessary. In my opinion, the grounds mentioned in the application sufficiently complies with the requirement as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta¹ . Further more, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of ₹ 60,000/- with the society on or before 15.07.2023. Statement accepted. Such deposit shall abide by the final decision of the matter.

¶22

1 (2018) 1 SCC 560

¶23

Page 2 of 3 4^th July 2023

¶24

911-WPCR-49-2023.DOC

¶25

5. In case the petitioner succeeds, the said amount will be refunded by the respondent without any delay. This is without prejudice to the respondents' right to claim interim compensation.

¶26

6. The impugned order is set aside. The application exhibit D-12 is allowed. The petitioner to cooperate with the trial Court in the expeditious disposal of the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶27

7. Disposed of.

¶28

M. S. KARNIK, J

¶29

Digitally signed by ANDREZA ANDREZA PEREIRA PEREIRA Date: 2023.07.06 19:10:22 +05'30'

¶30

Page 3 of 3 4^th July 2023

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai v. Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Rep. by Prabhakar Rama Gaude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Vishnu Sardessai v. Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Rep. by Prabhakar Rama Gaude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renuka Carrasco and 3 Ors. Vs State Thr. Police Inspector Anjuna Police Station and 2 Ors.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs Anand Rao v Chatim and 3 Others

Anthony D'Silva., Vs Verodiana Pinto and 2 Ors.

Mohan Namdev Uskaikar and Anr. Vs Malini Mavli Uskaikar and 17 Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

F.a.Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.