Dismissed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S.Appliances World

Kerala HC24 Sept 2012CRL.A/899/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a criminal appeal filed by Indian Overseas Bank against an acquittal order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant failed to make substantive submissions or explain delays in serving notice, leading the court to conclude the appeal was abandoned due to non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/S.Appliances World — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/2ND ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 899 of 2006 (F )

¶6

CRLP.191/2006 DATED 24-03-2006 CC.193/2003 of JMFC-V, TVM (SPL.COURT-MARKLIST CASES)

¶7

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED & FUNCTIONING UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 762, ANNASALAI,CHENNAI & HAVING BRANCHES ALL OVER INDIA, INCLUDING ONE AT SREEKANTESWARAM IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE::

¶11

M/S.APPLIANCES WORLD,T.C.2/2444,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PHILIP THOMAS.

¶12

PHILIP THOMAS,PROPRIETOR OF M/S.APPLIANCES WORLD,T.C.2/2444,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶13

M/S.CARNOT, T.C.3/2765,FATHIMA COLONY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, THOMAS.P.

¶14

THOMAS P., PROPRIETOR OF CARNOT, T.C.3/2715, FATHIMA COLONY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SMT.S.HYMA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶19

Crl.A.No.899 of 2006

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The above appeal pertains to the year 2006 in which the challenge is against the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent who faced prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The above appeal was admitted as early as on 22/05/2006 and notice was ordered. But so far service is not complete. On 15/06/2012 the counsel sought one week's time and time granted. Again on 08/08/2012 the counsel sought two week's time to cure the defect that was also granted with a direction that post after two weeks, if steps are not taken in the meanwhile. Thus the matter is again posted today. Today the counsel is not in a position to make any substantive submission regarding the total amount involved in the case and no explanation is offered for not taking steps to serve notice in spite of the fact that several adjournments were taken in this regard.

¶23

Crl.A.No.899/2006

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

The above approach of the appellant shows that they are not interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶26

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶27

skj

¶28

True copy

¶29

P.A. to Judge

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S.Appliances World

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S.Appliances World

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

K.Balachandran Vs Proprietor,South India Tyre Retrading

Babu C.Jacob Vs Philip T.P. & Another

Somanathan @ Soman Vs State of Kerala

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/S.Appliances World

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/S.Appliances World

State of Kerala Vs Raphel