Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C.C.No.478/SC/2022
Exh.15
MHMM180073592022
C.C.No.478/SC/2022
MR. GHANSHYAM TEKCHANDANI
Vs. MR. SUNIL MURJANI
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH COURT,
BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.15
1. This is an application filed u/sec.143(A) of Negotiable
Instrument Act for Interim Compensation by the complainant.
2. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that accused has
pleaded not guilty to the offence levelled against him. Hence this application
filed u/sec.143(A) of The Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The accused objected the application vide reply Exh.20
contending that the case is false. The complainant is a money lender. The
accused is running the business of Batteries and never run any garment shop.
The cheque was given towards the security of the loan transaction. The
accused had paid entire loan amount. Accordingly, prayed for rejecting the
application.
4. Heard advocate Mr. Satyendra Sharma for the complainant and
advocate Minaz Ansari for the accused.
5. The process in cases u/sec.138 used to be issued on the prima
facie grounds and evidence produced by the complainant. The office copy of
the bill produced alongwith the complaint shows the nature of business of the
accused as Mega Cap Batteries. It is the case of the complainant that he
supplied the clothes mentioned in the said invoice of Devi Garments to the
accused. Considering difference of nature of business of both parties, there is
reason to believe the contention of the accused as to different transaction in
-- 1 of 2 --
… 2 … C.C.No.478/SC/2022
Exh.15
between the parties. The same seems to be money lending transaction.
Otherwise, a battery shop keeper has no reason to purchase large number of
clothes as mentioned in bill Exh.16. Merely issuance of cheque would not
attract the legal liability to pay the same unless said transaction is proved
during the trial. Therefore, this court is not inclined to invoke the powers
u/sec.143(A) of the Negotiable Instrument Act to grant interim
compensation. It will be just and proper to direct the parties to go for trial
instead of granting interim compensation. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. The application is rejected.
2. The accused to cross examine the complainant on next
date positively and should not delay the trial.
3. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
Mumbai, (M. P. Saraf)
Dated : 02.08.2023. Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code – MH01362
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 : Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 02.08.2023.
Transcribed and Typed on : 02.08.2023.
Order printed and Signed on : 02.08.2023.
Order Uploaded on : 02.08.2023.
-- 2 of 2 --