Dismissed

M/S Manjuldeep Minerals v. M/S. Anjani Automobiles

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2018CRLLA/178/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal leave to appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench held that no case for appeal was made out as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he was the sole proprietor or an authorized representative of the firm to file the original complaint.

What did the court decide?

Criminal leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act is dismissed.

M/S Manjuldeep Minerals Vs M/S. Anjani Automobiles — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 178/2017

¶4

M/s. Manjuldeep Minerals Through Its Proprietor Mukesh Doshi S/o Late Shri Surajmal Doshi, Resident Of Shivanjali, 100, Bhupalpura Main Road, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Anjani Automobiles Through Its Proprietor Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Machal Singh Tomar, Resident Of Near Telephone Exchange, Malhargarh, District Mandsore (M.P.). Second Address Balaganj, Near Hanuman Temple Mandsore (M.P.)

¶7

For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Jain Mr. K.S. Lodha

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

05/10/2018

¶11

This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by Mukesh Doshi on behalf of the petitioner-M/s. Manjuldeep Minerals, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the petitioner-firm’) seeking leave to file criminal appeal against the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court’), whereby the complaint filed by Mukesh Doshi on behalf of petitioner-firm under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NI Act’) against the respondent has been dismissed and the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶12

(2 of 2) [CRLLA-178/2017]

¶13

The trial court has rejected the complaint filed by Mukesh Doshi mainly on the ground that he has failed to establish the fact that he is the sole proprietor of petitioner-firm, on behalf of whom the complaint is filed, and also failed to establish that the petitioner-firm is either partnership firm or a sole proprietorship firm and he is the person who is authorised to file complaint on its behalf against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and after carefully scrutinizing the record particularly the crossexamination of Mukesh Doshi, who got examined himself in support of the complaint as PW-1, I am fully satisfied that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment because Mukesh Doshi has failed to establish the fact that he is the sole proprietor of the petitioner-firm and he is authorised to file complaint on its behalf.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has also not been able to satisfy this Court that Mukesh Doshi is the sole proprietor of petitioner-firm, on behalf of whom complaint was filed by him or he was authorised to file complaint on its behalf.

¶16

Hence, no case is made out for grant leave to file criminal appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶17

Accordingly, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶18

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶19

Abhishek Kumar S.No.45

M/S Manjuldeep Minerals v. M/S. Anjani Automobiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manjuldeep Minerals v. M/S. Anjani Automobiles

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

Lichu Ram @ Laxman Vs State

Lakharam and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Vishnu Ram Vs State and Ors.

Vajja Ram Vs State

Shyam Lal Vs State

Parbat Singh Vs State and Ors.