Allowed

Suresh Madhukar Giram v. Nirmal Vijay Jain and Another

Bombay HC7 Oct 2024APPLN/1914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant in a long-pending Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding sought release of money deposited with the High Court pursuant to an earlier order. The Court allowed withdrawal of the deposited amount with accrued interest, subject only to an undertaking to re-deposit if the impugned judgments are reversed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw Rs.5,00,000 deposited with the Court with accrued interest, on furnishing an undertaking to re-deposit if the impugned judgments are reversed.

Suresh Madhukar Giram Vs Nirmal Vijay Jain and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24465

¶2

39-CrAn-1914-24.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1914 OF 2024 IN REVN/53/2024

¶6

SURESH MADHUKAR GIRAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

NIRMAL VIJAY JAIN AND ANOTHER

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Girish K. Naik Thigle Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. Sushant V. Dixit APP for Respondent No.2: Mr. G. O. Wattamwar

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2024

¶12

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 07-10-2024

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

The applicant has applied for withdrawal of the amount deposited with this Court pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 20.02.2024.

¶16

The original applicant has objection on the ground that there is no legally enforceable debt. However, both Court erroneously convicted the accused on the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumptions were rebutted. However, neither the trial Court nor the first Appellate Court believed that those presumptions were rebuttable.

¶17

The proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was opened long back in 2016. Since then, the

¶18

39-CrAn-1914-24.odt

¶19

¶20

applicant/complainant did not get fruits of the judgment which is in his favour. Hence, it would be unjustifiable to deny him the payment of amount deposited with this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the applicant has some antecedents. So, he may abscond and it would be very difficult to recover that amount. Hence, if the applicant is allowed the condition of bank guarantee may be imposed.

¶22

Since there are two judgments against the applicant, the Court is of the view that imposing condition of bank guarantee would amount to deprive the applicant from enjoying the fruits of the order. However, the applicant/complainant may be directed to furnish undertaking. Hence, the order:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) The criminal application stands allowed.

¶25

ii) The applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five Lakh) deposited with this Court, with accrued interest, if any, on furnishing an undertaking that he would deposit the money, if the impugned judgments and orders are reversed.

¶26

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶27

rrd

Suresh Madhukar Giram v. Nirmal Vijay Jain and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Madhukar Giram v. Nirmal Vijay Jain and Another

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

Dipak Haribhau Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudeep Ramesh Mahore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sahil Sikandar Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Uttam Misal and Others Vs the Stat of Maharashtra

Rangnath S/O. Deorao Bhingardive Vs Shrinath Nagar Sahakari Patsanstha and Anr.

Jivan Bhimrao Pundage Vs Vijaymala Jivan Pundage