Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180019442018 Summons Cases SS/3304/2017
KRYFS Power Components Ltd. Vs. Aditya Vidyut
Applicances Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.91
This is an application praying discharge of accused moved by
accused No.2.
2. Complainant strongly objected the application vide reply.
3. Heard advocate Mr. Ajay Badode for the accused No.2 and
advocate Mr. Vinay Vyas for the complainant.
4. On reading application, it appears that accused No.2 who is one
of the director of accused No.1 insolvent company, has moved this
application praying discharge of accused No.1 company in view of
orders passed by Hon’ble NCLT.
5. Legal question crops up for consideration whether accused No.2
has locus standi to move present application when the accused No.1
company went in liquidation or declared insolvent or insolvency
proceeding is going on before NCLT ? In the eyes of law once the
insolvency proceeding is invoked, its directors seized the right to
continue with the administration of the business as well as properties of
the insolvent company.
6. Secondly, the proceeding for offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, being summary in nature, there can not be
discharge of the accused. The provisions of warrant trial would not be
applicable to the cases tried summarily for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that CIRP came to
be appointed in insolvency proceeding which is filed prior to the cause
of action to the complaint, same will not affect in any way the trial
court proceeding nor exonerate the directors from legal liability.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Summons Cases SS/3304/2017
Order Below Exh.91
Hon’ble Supreme Court has cleared the legal position in such matters in
various Judgments. Besides, accused No.1 company who seems to be
corporate debtor within the meaning of section 14 of I.B.Code, the trial
will continue against rest of the directors that is natural persons.
8. Record and proceeding shows that accused are not really
interested in proceeding with the trial on merits. There is reason to
believe and draw such interference looking into the time killing
approach under the guise of remedies available in law. Matter is
pending since year 2017. Time and again Hon’ble Supreme by its
guidelines has directed the trial court for expeditious trial. The
conduct of the accused parties seems to be only protracting litigation
instead of exercising right of cross examination by putting legal
defence. Therefore, in view of reasons recorded above this court is
constrained to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is rejected.
2. Advocate for accused to take note that no adjournment
would be granted on next date on any ground and shall keep
their client present before the court.
3. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
4. Order be uploaded on CIS for the knowledge of the parties.
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Date : 07.11.2025 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Summons Cases SS/3304/2017
Order Below Exh.91
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 07.11.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 07.11.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 07.11.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 07.11.2025.
-- 3 of 3 --