Writ petition filed to uphold the rejection of an application to restore a cheque bounce complaint. The court found no illegality in the Magistrate's decision dismissing the restoration application due to lack of explanation for inordinate delay and absence of statutory power.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.47281 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
Godrej Agrovet Limited A Company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Godrej One, 3rd Floor, Pirojshanagar Eastern Express Highway Vikhroli (East) Mumbai-400 079 And its administrative office at No.497, 5th Cross, 7th Main V.V Nagar, R.T Nagar Post Bengaluru-560 032
Represented by its authorized Representative Bimalendu Panda Asst. Manager –Legal.
...PETITIONER
(By Smt. Jyothi Bhat, Advocate for Sri Vijay Narayan, Advocate)
AND:
Mr. Niraj Narayan Dutta Aged Major Proprietor of M/s Pelican Enterprises
2
Address at Nirajan Kanan Plot No.47/1153, Mahatab Road Bhubaneswar Orissa State-751 002.
… RESPONDENT
(By Sri Hari Prasad U.J, Advocate)
This Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Order dated 28.03.2015 in C.C No.28214/2007 as pronounced and recorded in Annexure - B and etc,.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing , this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act was returned to the complainant to present as the same before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dasharath
Roop Singh Rathod v/s State of Maharastra reported in 2014(3) KCCR 2313 . The said order was passed on 28.3.2015. The Central Government issued
3
ordinance immediately conferring the jurisdiction on the Magistrate to try the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act where the complainant is having an account. The petitioner filed an application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. to review the earlier order and restore the complaint to its original position. The said application came to be rejected.
learned counsel for the petitioner.
4
complaint to its original position and also no plausible explanation is offered for the inordinate delay in filing the application. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Magistrate was correct in rejecting the application to restore the complaint after inordinate delay without offering a plausible explanation.
Whether the petitioner can demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the review application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dasharath Roop Singh Rathod v/s State of MaharastraReferred¶21
2014(3) KCCR 2313
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Godrej Agrovet Limited
Mr. Niraj Narayan Dutta
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
