Allowed

M/S.Sea Queen Shipping v. P.Gopalakrishnan

Madras HC11 Sept 2014CRL RC/892/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision challenging an order condoning a two-year delay in filing a cheque bounce complaint. The Court held that the lower court failed to record reasons for justifying the delay and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

The order of VI Metropolitan Magistrate condoning delay was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Court below with a direction to inform reasons for its decision.

M/S.Sea Queen Shipping Vs P.Gopalakrishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶8

1.M/s.Sea Queen Shipping Services P Ltd., represented by its Managing Director,

¶9

S.Padmanabhan

¶10

2.S.Padmanabhan ... Petitioners/Accused

¶11

¶12

P.Gopalakrishnan ... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 06.08.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.816 of 2012 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai – 1.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

¶15

Petitioners challenge the order of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.816 of 2012 on 06.08.2014.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶17

Towards avoiding unnecessary protraction of proceedings, this Court finally disposes of this revision without issuing notice to the respondent/complainant.

¶18

By the order under challenge, condonation of delay of 224 days in preferring a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was ordered. The order reads thus:

¶19

“Condone delay petition is justifiable. The respondent strongly objected to condone the delay.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances. Interest of justice this Court is involved to condone the delay of 224 days on payment of cost of Rupees 100/- towards District Legal Service, Chennai on or before 27.08.2014. Call on 27.08.2014.”

¶22

It would not suffice for the Court below merely to inform that the delay is justified. It is for the Court below to inform also reasons why it considers the delay justified.

¶23

This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The order of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.816 of 2012 on 06.08.2014, shall stand set aside. With the above observations, this matter shall now stand remitted back to the Court below with a direction to inform reasons for its decision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶25

2.-do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. 1 cc to Mr.S.Karthikeyan ,Advocate, SR.No.43871

¶26

Crl.R.C.No.892 of 2014

¶27

bvr(co) pmk.18.7.2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Sea Queen Shipping v. P.Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sea Queen Shipping v. P.Gopalakrishnan

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

Anandan @ Douglas Devananda Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs Kalaiselvi

Sivashankar Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ganesan Vs P.Thangavel

J.Murugan Vs Sumathi

N.Murugesan Vs P.Balakankathara Thilagar