Dismissed

Mr Naveen Gupta v. Abb Limited

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2014CRL.P/754/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions under Section 482 CrPC for quashing Section 138 NI Act proceedings dismissed. Court held that questions of limitation and company existence must be addressed by trial court, and application for exemption due to age/ailment should be made before trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashment disposed of; liberty taken to urge contentions before trial court; IA for stay dismissed.

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

�

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1438 OF 2014 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.754 TO 763 OF 2014, 1444 OF 2014, 1445 OF 2014, 1442 OF 2014, 1447 OF 2014, 1446 OF 2014, 1443 OF 2014, 1441 OF 2014, 1439 OF 2014 AND 1440 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ashish Jhunjhunwala S/o Ambika Prasad Jhunjhunwala Age: 52 years Managing Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited Hastings Chamber 1^st and 2^nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 … Petitioner in Crl.P.No.1438/2014

¶9

Mr.Naveen Gupta Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited Hastings Chamber 1^st and 2^nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001

¶10

Mr.Aayush Lohia Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited

¶11

�

¶12

Hastings Chamber 1^st and 2^nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 … Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.754-763/2014

¶13

Ashish Jhunjhunwala S/o Ambika Prasad Jhunjhunwala Age: 52 years Managing Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited Hastings Chamber 1^st and 2^nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 …

¶14

… Petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1444-1445/14 1442/14, 1447/14, 1446/14 1443/14, 1441/14, 1439/14 1440/14

¶15

(By Sri.C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, Adv.)

¶16

And:

¶17

ABB Limited A Company under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its regd. office at 2^nd Floor, East Wing Khanija Bhavan 49, Race Course Road Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Mr.Dinchu Oommen … Common Respondent

¶18

(By Sri.Keerti Kumar D.Naik, Adv.) - - -

¶19

�

¶20

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying to quash the entire proceedings as against these petitioners in C.C.Nos.27188/2012, 27188/2012, 27189/2012, 27190/2012, 27191/2012, 27192/2012, 27193/2012, 27194/2012, 27195/2012, 27196/2012, 27197/2012, 27194/2012, 27195/2012, 27192/2012, 27197/2012, 27196/2012, 27193/2012, 27191/2012, 27189/2012 and 27190/2012, respectively pending on the file of XIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore.

¶21

These Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

These petitions are heard and they are disposed of by this

¶24

common order having regard to the identical questions involved in

¶25

the same.

¶26

These petitions are filed questioning the initiation of proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on two grounds. Firstly, that the complaint has been filed beyond the time prescribed and secondly,

¶27

that the complaint has been brought against the Managing Director and in the name of a Company which is not in existence. These are questions to be addressed by the Trial Court at the initial stage and if the same has passed muster, it is for the petitioners to enlighten

¶28

�

¶29

the Court as to the circumstances claimed. The Trial Court is in a better position to address these two issues. Therefore, with liberty to the petitioners to urge the contentions as regards the limitation and the maintainability of the complaint, on the ground that the Company on whose behalf the Cheque had been issued, was not made a party, the petitions are disposed of. The Trial Court to examine these contentions at the preliminary stage in order save time and effort if the complaint should fail on those grounds alone. With that observation, petitions stand disposed of. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the Trial Court has already condoned the delay. If that be so, the respondent would have the advantage as to the contention of the complaint being barred by time and which may not survive for consideration. It is again for the petitioners to satisfy the Court below that it could not be

¶30

condoned.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners also raises a contention that the Managing Director named as an accused is aged

¶32

�

¶33

and ailing and therefore, seeks that there be a blanket order exempting him from appearing before the Court below. This is not to be urged before this Court. It is for the petitioner to make appropriate applications before the Court below on each date of hearing, which the Trial Court, in its discretion, would consider.

¶34

In view of disposal of the petitions, IA.1/2014 filed for grant of stay in Crl.P.Nos.1438/2014, 1444/2014, 1445/2014, 1442/2014, 1447/2014, 1446/2014, 1443/2014, 1441/2014,

¶35

1439/2014 and 1440/2014 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Mr Naveen Gupta v. Abb Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Naveen Gupta v. Abb Limited

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

Karnataka International Education Vs the State of Karnataka

T P Muninarayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited Vs the Registrar of Companies

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited