Adamji Investment Pvt. Ltd. through Rajendra Shinde vs Union Quality Plastics Ltd. and Ors.

¶1

41-APEAL-903-2024 WITH 904-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.904 OF 2024

¶4

Adamji Investment Pvt. Ltd. …. Appellant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Union Quality Plastics Ltd. & Ors. …. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.11.07 10:09:49 +0530

¶8

Mr.Gaurav Chongrani (Present in Court) & Mr.Lokesh Zade, for the Appellant (Through V.C.) Mr.Sachin R. Agawane, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP, for Respondent No.4-State.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 4^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

. By consent both the appeals are heard finally at the

¶13

stage of admission, together and decided by this common order.

¶14

These Appeals take exception to the order dated 25^th

¶15

April 2023 passed in CC No.7001117/SS/2020 and 70011780/SS/201920 dismissing the complaints filed under

¶16

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for want of prosecution.

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶18

41-APEAL-903-2024 WITH 904-24.doc

¶19

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that,

¶20

on account of miscommunication between the counsel and the complainant, the proceedings before the Magistrate could not be attended, and ultimately resulted in its dismissal. It is his submission that in the interest of justice require that the order impugned be set aside even by imposing reasonable costs. The learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, makes statement that the Complainant would attend the said proceedings regularly on each date whenever his personal presences is required.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the Appeal by contending that for a period of over more than six months the Complainant failed to cause appearance before the Magistrate. This according to him indicate that complainant had lost interest in prosecuting the said complaint. As such it is not a case for allowing the Appeal.

¶22

There is no dispute about the fact that after filing of the Complainant before the Magistrate, the proceedings have reached to the stage of filing of affidavit of evidence by the

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶24

41-APEAL-903-2024 WITH 904-24.doc

¶25

Complainant. It is after filing of affidavit in the lieu of evidence, the Complainant has failed to cause his appearance before the Court which has resulted into dismissal of the said proceeding. Filing of the affidavit of the evidence indicates that Complainant was intending to proceed with the said complaint. This Court therefore has reason to believe that on account of miss communication between the counsel and the Complainant, the proceedings were not attended to. Having regard to the facts of the case and in the interest of justice it is a fit case wherein the orders impugned deserves to be set aside by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- in each Appeal, payable to the Respondent-Accused. In the view of the above following order.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

No.7001117/SS/2020 and 70011780/SS/201920 stands restored to the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.70th at the stage of its dismissal.

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶29

41-APEAL-903-2024 WITH 904-24.doc

¶30

(iii) Parties are directed to cause appearance before the Magistrate on 16^th December 2025. Magistrate is not required to issue any fresh notice to the parties. (iv) Learned Magistrate to ensure that the amount of the cost is paid to the accused or deposited before the said court on or before the date of appearance. Payment of the cost would be pre condition for restoration of the proceedings before the Magistrate. In case cost is not paid these Appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

¶31

(v) In case cost is paid Magistrate to decide the cases in accordance with law.

¶32

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Adamji Investment Pvt. Ltd. through Rajendra Shinde v. Union Quality Plastics Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adamji Investment Pvt. Ltd. through Rajendra Shinde v. Union Quality Plastics Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors.

Irfan Ibrahim Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Surendra Pandurang Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Pratibha Pawan Ram and Ors.

Lingappa Somana Bengali vs State of Maharashtra

Vakil Ahmad Sagirhasan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.