Dismissed

M/S Ravela Engineering Industries., v. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., and 3 Others

Telangana HC18 Nov 2021CRLA/939/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2008 filed by T Rama Rao Engineering Industries. The appeal against a conviction under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed for default as the appellant failed to appear and continue to lack interest in pursuing the matter.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed for default due to the appellant's non-appearance and disinterest.

M/S Ravela Engineering Industries., Vs Hindusthan Cables… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HrcH COURT FOR

¶2

o. itbfiffIirE oF TETANGA^IA

¶3

r n u n s

¶4

?i/o, H5 r.l:1f.^.#Ji?fi oF No^yEMB ER

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶7

CRIM NAL APPEA L NO: 939 OF 2008

¶8

Appear Under Section 37g (a) of cr.p.c. against the Judgment dated 08'04'2009 in c.c' No. 2143 0f 2005 0n the fire of the court of the X Metroporitan Magistrate , Cyberabad at Matkajgiri.

¶9

Between:

¶10

It//s Ravela Enqineerinq rndustries , rep. by_its IVanaging partner y. Radha Krishna, s/o. Late Y Venkateswara Rao qseg qz iir , 'oi.' e;rixess, onice situated at A-1 3. Road No. e rDA Nacharam, Hydeiadad -76^{-'--- --"' ".:.ffipEiihj[ii"clifir"'];,""t}

¶11

AND

¶12

Hindusthan Cables Ltd., rep, by. Chief Generat Manager, tDA, Chertapaily, HyderaBad-51

¶13

AG.Nageswara Rao, Senior General Manager (Finance), Hindustan Cables Ltd., I DA Cherlapally, Hyderabad.

¶14

G.Venkateshwara Rao, Ivlanager (Finance), Hindustan Cables Ltd., IDA Cherlapally, Hyderabad. .. Respondents / Accused

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., ...RESPODENT

¶16

at Hyderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. B. PRATAP^{( not present} )

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3 : NONEAPPEARED}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE^{T ON,BLEDT. ]USTICESHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶23

f2 0

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This Cri^{ninal APPeal is filedby the aPPellant/comPlainant} Cr.P,C,^{challengingthe iudgmentdated} under Sectior³⁷⁸⁽⁴⁾ 08.04.2008 P^{lssed in} C.C.No,2143 of^{2005 bY the learned X} Metropolitan'4agistrate,^{Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri' whereinthe} Court below a:quitted^{the respondent Nos'1to 3/AccusedNos'1 t0} 3 for the offen:e^{punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of N'I' Act'}

¶26

Heard tfe learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorappearing for} respondent No 2-State and^{perused the record.}

¶27

No repre ;entation for lhe appellant.^{On earlier occasionalso,} there was no representation for the appellant and^hence,the matter was^posted "for orders" today. Even then there^{is no} representation 'or the appellant. It appears that the appellant has no interest to p rrsue the matter.

¶28

Under th( se circumstances, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed

¶29

for default.

¶30

Miscellane )us petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall steld closed

¶31

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ( li/' SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To 1. The X Metropolita 1 Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Secu nderabad.(with records)

¶33

Two CCs to Publi^, Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶34

One CC to SRl. B PRATAP, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

¶35

One Spare Copy

ft-TR

HiGH COURT

DATED:1811112121

ORDER

CRLA.No.939 rf 2008

i,
d'ff;
/;,n
tt 1 $ DEf ?i?i
\

¶43

DISMISSING THE CRT APPEAL FOR DEFAULl'

¶44

rY^\ro
o-
w)

M/S Ravela Engineering Industries., v. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ravela Engineering Industries., v. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., and 3 Others

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

M/S. Om Surya Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S. a-Z Marketing and the State of A.P.

Smt. R.Krishnaveni, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp

T.Sri Ramachandra Murthy Vs State of Ap.Rep.Pp.Hyd.Another

Yada Narender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

V.Shankaraiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

G.Shiva Raj Vs Smt. G.Durga Bhavani and the State of A.P.