Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180113092024 Misc Cases/5801883/2024
Manjeet Singh T Anand Vs.
Om Sai Co operative Credit Society Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
COMMON ORDER BELOW APPLICATIONS EXH.9 AND EXH.25
Both applications are preferred for passing an exparte order
against respondent Nos.1 and 2 against whom the delay condonation
application and complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 is filed.
2. Heard complainant and advocate on last date.
3. Perused proceeding and registered post envelops of notice to
the respondents for answering the application for condonation of delay.
Both envelops are returned unserved with postal remark ‘Left’. Perused
the report filed by police at Exh.7. The police report shows that the
respondent No.1 alleged Co-operative Credit Society is not in existence on
the address mentioned in the complaint. Instead of office of Credit Co-
operative Society, one Malsala shop is run at said place. The police report
further discloses that respondent No.2 Smt. Rajani Deshpande seems to be
staying permanently at Kolhapur.
4. Complainant vehemently argued that still official address of
respondent No.1 is same. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shows said address
located at New Ekta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Jogeshwari(W),
Mumbai.
5. On hearing and perusal of reports, it is crystal clear that
respondent No.1 Credit Co-operative Society against which the delay
condonation application and complaint under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, preferred is not in existence on the
address mentioned in the complaint as well as Fixed Deposit Receipt.
Delay condonation application indicates delay of 166 days in filing
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Misc Cases/5801883/2024
Common Order Below Exhs.9 & 25
complaint which requires hearing of other side prior to passing any order.
In the facts and circumstances, the registered post notice can not be legal
and valid service of notice upon the respondents that is proposed accused.
Unless the accused/respondents are duly served on correct address, no
presumption of particular address can be invoked only on the basis of
registered address of respondent No.1 mentioned in Fixed Deposit
Receipt.
6. On the contrary, police report has thrown light on the
permanent residence of respondent No.2 Smt. Rajani Deshpande, so as to
enable the complainant to trace out correct address for due legal and valid
service of the notice. The application for proceeding ex-parte against
respondents would amount to denial of giving opportunity of hearing
contemplated by virtue of notice. Considering the period of delay, the
complaint can not be entertained without deciding delay condonation
application nor point can be left upon for final consideration. Therefore,
application for proceeding the delay condonation application ex-parte
assuming the address on Fixed Deposit Receipt where at present a Masala
Shop is in existence being illegal, deserves to be rejected. I pass following
order.
ORDER
1. Both applications are rejected.
2. Complainant to take necessary appropriate steps by searching
correct address of respondents so as to serve the notices
according to Law.
3. Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
4. Order be uploaded on Court Web Portal.
Mumbai, (M.P.Saraf)
Dated : 13.08.2025. Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code-MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Misc Cases/5801883/2024
Common Order Below Exhs.9 & 25
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 : 13.08.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 13.08.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 13.08.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 13.08.2025.
-- 3 of 3 --