Dismissed

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, v. the Union of India, Govt of India, and Another

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022WP/20920/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. Request for stay in criminal cheque dishonour proceedings was declined as the court was not inclined to interdict pending proceedings or examine the constitutional challenge at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no stay granted; no order as to costs.

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, Vs the Union of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t^32s51

¶2

HrGHcouRrr.*,]It5"iJt'lF-.3:,tt"t3}3f)$otHYDERABAD

¶3

TuESDA:r#zEJSIlIS'^Nt1ii='-?[Ri8*'*

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN}

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEC'V' BHASKARREDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:20920 or2006}

¶9

B"til/".:th""ic

¶10

Enterprises,^{D-152, sector-7Nioda, U.P,rep. by its Proprietor'} Anup Ham RoY. ...'ETITIONER

¶11

...'ETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union^{Of lndia Rep' by its Secretary' Ministry of Law andJustice' New} Delhi.

¶14

Feno^{plast Ltd., regd. Office 306-8, 3rd Floor' Chenaoy TradeCenter' Park} lane, Secunderabad,^{rep. by its Company Secretary'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or direction or order^{more particularly one in the nature of} 'tvlandamus striking down the section '145 of N.l.A Act which was emended through Act 55l2oo2 as violative of section^{137&142 of lndian evidenceact and} article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 26547 OF 2006)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings in criminal case C.C.No.636l2OO4 on the file of the learned XI Chief lvletropolitan magistrate, Secunderabad pending final adjudication of the W.P. otherwise the petitioner will be put to great loss and prejudice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. M PITCHAIAH

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI B.MUKHEFJEE,

¶21

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

TIIE I ION,E).E THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BIIUYITN AND

¶23

THE , ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHAS]<AR F.}] DD'T

¶24

IIRI'[ PETITION No.2O92O of 200ti

¶25

ORDER: Pet th'^{Hon'ble rhe ChefJ$ticeU)iQl Bhusaal}

¶26

None has appeared^{for the petitioner,though} Mr. B.Mukht^{rjee, learned counselis presetrtlor :r:spondent} No.1.

¶27

2 Though the^{pravermade in the ru'it peti''ion is to} declare^{Sect orl I45 of the Negotiablelnstrurnenl-sAct'} 188 1, as^{ul tconstitutional} '^{the basic grievarlce of the} petitioner^{pe'tains to proceedings in C C No'6 16 ol 2004} instituteci^{by rcspondentNo 2 in the Court of X Adcitional} Chief^{Metrol olitar-r Magistrate'City Crin-rinalCor-rrts at} Secunderaba^1'

¶28

The ab<^{ve complaint casewas registeredon th': basis} of the^{complLint lodged by respondent No'2 unCer Section} 138 of^{the Ne gotiablelnstrumentsAct' 188 1' fol' tlishonour} of the chequt^{dated 06'03'2004amountin€{to Rs 1'CrOlakh} issued^{bJ- the} Petitioner'

¶29

At this distant point of time, we are not inclined to either interdict C.C.No.636 ol 2OO4 or examine the challenge made

¶30

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Hor.r,ever, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (ft, SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

One CC to Sri. M. Pitchaiah, Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri B.Mukherjee, SC for Central Government [OPUC]

¶35

Two CD Copies

¶36

One Spare Copy AKB

HIGH COUR T

DATED:1811)t2022

ORDER

WP.No. 209 !0 OF 2006

¶42

-/--
-=a Orr
/
-/ n
)'
$11
n( \<br>.n./
-'.r' .t/
i "_r,

¶43

DISMISEED^()F THE WP WITHOUT C(ISTS

¶44

5cq6t6 w- i,,,,1'-

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, v. the Union of India, Govt of India, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, v. the Union of India, Govt of India, and Another

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

Veeramma, Vs The A.P. Pollution Control Board

The A.P State Road Transport Corporation (Now Tsrtc) Vs G.S.Gangadhar

The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Vs M/s. Fertilizers and Pesticides Seeds Dealers Association

C. Krishna Babu, S/o Late C. Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, repby

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, Vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex

Federation for the Leprosy-Cured People, Regd.No.348 of Vs The Union of India represented by its Principal Secretary