Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180084562023
Summary Cases/5800577/2023
Nandu Nilaya Shetty Vs. Chetan Vedprakash Vijan
Proprietor And Authorised Signatory Of M/s Veejay Auto Accessories
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE(FIRST CLASS),
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.15
Vide captioned application complainant is claiming an interim
compensation u/sec.143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Accused objected the application vide reply Exh.17.
3. Heard advocate Mr. Shetty for the complainant and advocate Mr.
Rahul Gautam for the accused.
4. Perusal of Exh.1 complaint indicates the transaction of letting of
the Restaurant and Bar for conducting business by giving an amount of
Rs.14,50,000/- to the accused time to time during 13.09.2019 to
26.04.2022. Complainant has came with a case of issuing subject
cheque in discharge of liability of repayment of said amount of which
the accused has acknowledged liability by executing various Promissory
Notes. Per contra accused has taken defence of total denial of any
transaction, ownership of disputed Restaurant and Bar with the
accused, existence of legal liability etc. Accused has came with a case of
lost of his cheques and its misuse by the complainant due to earlier
friendly relations and transactions.
5. The case of complainant indicates making payment of various
amount on various dates totalling to Rs.14,50,000/-. According to him
the sum is paid for handing over the Restaurant and Bar for conducting
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Summary Cases/5800577/2023
Order below Exh.15
business to him. Admittedly, there is no such legal Agreement placed
on record. Furthermore, none of the prudent man would go on making
payment under pretext of getting the Restaurant for conducting
business when the other side is not owner of the Restaurant and Bar.
Accused has categorically replied the demand notice. By way of reply
accused has raised proper defence of misplacing cheques. The cheques
in question pertains to the account of Vijay Auto Accessories which has
prima facie no connection with the alleged Restaurant and Bar.
6. The case of complainant based merely on the custody of the
cheques and various Promissory Notes can not be said to be a strong
prima facie case to consider any privity of contract in between parties.
The presumption of law under section 118(a) and 139 would not
attract merely on the basis of custody of the cheques with the accused
who has taken, defence of lost of his cheques and its misuse. No prima
facie case made out to invoke the powers conferred upon this court
under section 143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Parties need to
be directed to go for trial. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1) The application is rejected.
2) Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
3) Order be uploaded on Court Web Portal.
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Date : 02.07.2025 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Summary Cases/5800577/2023
Order below Exh.15
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 : 02.07.2025
Transcribed and Typed on : 02.07.2025
Order printed and Signed on : 02.07.2025
Order Uploaded on : 02.07.2025
-- 3 of 3 --