Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180119062022
Summary Cases/5800781/2022
NAHID YUSUF MOHD. KHAN Vs. SHAISTA
SIRAAJ QURESHI
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH COURT,
BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.13
1. This is an application for an interim compensation
u/sec.143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that the
Tenancy Agreement was registered by Mrs. Razia Khatoon in favour of
the complainant on 27.08.2021. By virtue of said Agreement
complainant paid the heavy deposit amount to the Landlord on
25.08.2021 by way of two cheques worth Rs.95 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs.
It is further contended that neither complainant was put in possession
of the rented premises under Agreement nor the amount of security
deposit received by the Landloard Mrs. Razia Khatoon was returned to
her. On the contrary the daughter of Mrs. Razia Khatoon that is present
accused issued subject cheques dated 31.07.2022 for the refund of said
security deposit. The trial will take its own time. The accused has
appeared and pleaded not guilty. Hence, this application for an interim
compensation.
3. The accused objected the application vide reply Exh.14. The
ground raised on behalf of the accused is that she is not party to the
Tenancy Agreement. In short accused has taken defence of alibi and
denied existence of legal liability etc.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Summary Cases/5800781/2022
Order below Exh.13
4. Heard advocate Mr. Prashant Bodke for the complainant and
Ms.Vaishnavi Nair for the accused.
5. Complainant has produced the original Tenancy Agreement
executed in between her and the accused No.2 against whom process
was not issued. Accused No.1 is admittedly daughter of the accused
No.2 the original Landlord under Tenancy Agreement. On perusal of
registered Tenancy Agreement dated 27.08.2021, there is reason to
believe that the complainant has paid the amount of security deposit
worth Rs.95 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs by two cheques.
6. The complainant has produced cheques in question issued by the
accused No.1 at Exh.21 and 22. Both cheques are pertaining to the
joint account of accused and the Landloard of the premises. Therefore,
even though the accused is not party to the said Agreement, it can be
said that legal liability does not exist against her. The case would have
been different, if the cheques would be only of the account of the
accused No.1. The cheques drawn by the accused being out of joint
account of the Landlord of the premises and accused herself, she can
not escape from honouring the cheques under the legal liability.
Therefore, I do not found any legal substance in the contention of the
advocate for the accused. It is not that the complainant has not filed
complaint against the Landlord that is accused No.2. The complainant
has made the Landlord party, but the process was issued only against
the accused No.1, considering she being signatory of the cheques on
record.
7. Question crops up for determination, why would accused issued
said cheques, if she was not legally liable to refund the security deposit.
Therefore, there is reason to believe that the cheques in question were
issued purposely joining in hand with the mother of the accused with
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Summary Cases/5800781/2022
Order below Exh.13
an intention to refund the security deposit and that too out of Joint
Account. At this preliminary stage the presumption of law under
section 139 and 118(a) of the Act would follow in favour of the
complainant. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to make out the
case against the accused. The defence of the accused do not appears
plausible to succeed during the trial. Therefore, this a fit case to invoke
powers conferred upon this court under section 143-A of the Negotiable
Instrument Act to grant interim compensation to the complainant.
Huge amount is involved. The trial will take its own time to finalize
the rights of the parties. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1) The application is allowed.
2) The accused is directed to make payment of 20%
of cheque amount within 30 days to the
complainant as an interim compensation.
3) Order be uploaded on CIS.
4) Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Date : 23.10.2024 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Summary Cases/5800781/2022
Order below Exh.13
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 : 23.10.2024
Transcribed and Typed on : 23.10.2024
Order printed and Signed on : 23.10.2024
Order Uploaded on : 23.10.2024
-- 4 of 4 --