Full Order Text
Final Order 1 · 08 Mar 2023 · CNR MHMM180115262022
Order Details: Order Below EX 1 Pdf Text: 1 C.C.NO.698/SC/2022 MHMM180115262022 C.C.NO.698/SC/2022 Darshan Mehta Vs Pramod Balkrishna Gore IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI ORDER BELOW EXH.01 1. The complainant has filed present case against the accused for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant submitted that he is dealing in the business of he real industry since 2011. He has collaborated with Mr. Jayesh Karia. The accused also dealing in the business of the real estate. In the MayJune 2022 accused approached to them with request to assist him in identifying the strategic brand owners to let out space of the standalone building on leave and license. The accused entered into the agreement with them from 06.06.2022. In view of said agreement accused agreed to pay brokerage of 2 months rent. For the said liability accused has issued disputed cheque of Rs.6,00,000/ dtd. 01.08.2022, which is dishonored for the remark “Fund insufficient” on 06.08.2022. The accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after to receiving demand notice. 2. It revels from the pleading of the complainant that the accused entered into agreement dated 06.06.2022 which is Annex at Exhibit A with the list of document at Exh.3. On perusal of said agreement it reveals that accused entered into agreement with Mr. Jayesh Karia. In said agreement accused was agreed brokerage at the rate of 2% of deal value plus GST. In view of the said agreement Mr. Jayesh Karia is bound to provide a range of services in connection with identification and evaluation of the property and assist in the -- 1 of 2 -- 2 C.C.NO.698/SC/2022 negotiation. In the present case Mr. Jayesh Karia never supply such services to the accused. In view of the complainant they have supplied one lessee namely Niraj Entertainment Ltd to premises of the accused. But the transaction with the accused and Niraj Entertainment Ltd was not took place due to some other difficulties. Therefore, I hold that Mr. Jayesh Karia or his representative are not entitled to claim brokerage from the accused. No specific evidence brought on record that the complainant has a right to claim brokerage from the accused. He has filed the case in his personal capacity as a complainant and not in representative status of Mr. Jayesh Karia therefore I hold that the complainant is failed to prove Prima Facie case against the accused. In the contrary, it reveals that the accused has no legal liability to pay brokerage to the complainant. Therefore, I hold that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and process can not be issued against the accused. In the result I proceed to pass following order Order The present case is dismissed in view of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mumbai, (M.Y.Wagh) Dated : 08.03.2023. Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. -- 2 of 2 --