Dismissed

Manam Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Malhotra Authorised

Madras HC12 Jun 2018CRL RC/204/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against an order directing a cost deposit. The court held the challenged order was not final, barred revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., and noted the petitioner failed to comply with prior directions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed with no merit.

Manam Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjeev… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2011

¶6

Manam Fruit Products Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director R.P.Mohan, Thandarai Village, Bennangur Post, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 107.

¶7

... Petitioner/Complainant ..Vs..

¶8

Sanjeev Malhotra Authorised Signatory-Cum Managing Director, Sudharshan Overseas Limited, No.305, Sivam House, Karampura Commercial Complex,

¶9

New Delhi-110 015. ... Respondent/Accused

¶10

Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 01.12.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3434 of 2010 in C.C. unnumbered of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri.

¶11

For Petitioner : J.Srinivasan

¶12

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3434 of 2010, dated 21.10.2010 The petitioner in this case is the complainant. The complaint was presented before the Court on 04.01.2008 and the same was returned granting 15 days time to represent it after complying with the defects pointed out by the Court.

¶15

2.The complaint was represented with a delay of two years and 148 days and a petition was filed to condone this delay. The Court below took a lenient view and condoned the delay and

¶16

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

¶17

directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- as cost on or before 30.10.2010. The complainant without complying with this condition has chosen to file this Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 21.10.2010. This Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Revision on two grounds. Firstly, the nature of order passed by the trial Court is not a final order and therefore, there is a bar in maintaining the revision under Section 397 [2] of Criminal Procedure Code. That apart, the Court below has taken a very lenient view and imposed a cost of Rs.500/- to condone the delay and petitioner even without complying with this conditions has chosen to file this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶18

3.There are absolutely no merits in this Criminal Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Kp
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Krishnagiri.
2.Do The The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Krishnagiri.

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2011

¶21

KK(CO) GN(19/06/2018)

¶22

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

Manam Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Malhotra Authorised

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manam Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Malhotra Authorised

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

Mrs.Lakshmi Vs Mr.M.K.Krishnan

Sriram Vs M/S.Safire Lithographers

T.Ravichandran Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Armour Pharmaceuticals Vs M/S.T.v.S.Finance and Services

K.Sirajuddin Vs K.Nasrin

Mathiazagan Vs Station House Office