Disposed

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., v. M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd.

Madras HC2 Dec 2021CRL OP/29140/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act claiming lack of authorized initiation. Court dispensed with petitioner's physical presence for trial proceedings, noting preparedness to face charges via counsel, and disposed of the petition without granting quash.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioner before Trial Court dispensed with; Criminal Original Petition disposed of.

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., Vs M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.29140 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16461 & 16462 of 2017

¶6

RRP. Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, N.Padmanaban, No.4, Achutan Nagar, Ist Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai – 600 032. ...Petitioner/Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Ace Cemex Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Power Agent, Mr.B.Ramesh, Having Registered Office at No.19/9, Temple Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.61 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, (Fast Track Court No.II), Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Manimaran For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.61 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, (Fast Track Court No.II), Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.

¶12

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Though several grounds have been raised in the complaint initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the main contention putforth by the learned counsel is that the complaint has not been initiated by an Authorized person. Therefore, this Court posed a question with regard to the maintainability of the petition.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready to face the trial and the petitioner's appearance before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.

¶16

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or on any other date as may be required by the trial Court. They shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, when they are examined in Chief.

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

sts/ata

¶23

To:

¶24

The Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

¶25

(Fast Track Court No.II),

¶26

Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.

¶27

Crl.O.P. No.29140 of 2017

¶28

CP(CO) GN(17/12/2021)

¶29

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

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., v. M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., v. M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd.

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

S.Sangari, F/A-38 Years Vs Manimegalai, F/A-56

S.Sangari, F/A-38 Years Vs Kasthuri, F/A-62 Years

S.Sangari, F/A-38 Years Vs Govindan, M/A-68 Years

Ms.S.Seethalakshmi, Vs Mr.Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Lal

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., Vs M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd.

Rrp. Housing P Ltd., Vs M/S.Ace Cemex Private Ltd.