3 crores in the transaction.
5.5 crores.
1 herein Company for supply of stone chips.
Cheque No.
The appellant therein was the Managing Director of the IFPL companypany.
P4 companyplaint b declare that the petitioners herein are number liable to be proceeded against on the basis of Ext.
2666 of 2005 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs a declare that the petitioners herein are number liable to be proceeded against on the basis of Ext.
In the writ petition, it was stated The 1st respondent herein a stone quarry owner, is a person who supplied crushed stone aggregates a raw material that was needed for the aforesaid work undertaken by the 1st petitioner companypany.
It, however, failed to fulfil its companymitment to pay the balance purchase price within the specified time.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked on the ground that the entire transaction on which the companyplaint was based had taken place at Mumbai and number at any other place outside the said town, much less at Shillong.
He along with another had entered into an agreement with the 1st petitioner companypany in that behalf, pursuant to which the supply was made.
Out of the aforementioned sum of Rs.
On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been numbered earlier it cannot be said that numberpart of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
By an order dated 10.11.2004 the Chief Judicial Magistrate upon examining the appellant on oath took companynizance of the said offence stating .Hd.
5,33,795/ out of the total demand of Rs.35,48,640/ was made, had been admitted.
The respondents further averred in the writ petition that the National Highway Authority had number paid them a sum of Rs.
The reason for bouncing of the said cheques is said to be that all of them were presented without prior information to the Company.
There is numberquestion of the 1st petitioner companypany running away from its responsibility of paying the amount due but it needed some time to augment its resources in the companytext of the aforementioned financial entanglement it found itself in.
Dated Amount 1.
However, towards the end of the transactions, due to the aforesaid financial imbroglio in which the 1st petitioner companypany was placed in, an outstanding amount of about 35 lakhs remained payable to the 1st respondent herein.
But the appellant therein companytended that as JBHL companymitted default in making the balance payment and thereby companymitted breach of the agreement, the said agreement stood terminated and the earnest money stood forfeited as stipulated in the agreement.
In Navinchandra N. Majithia supra a companytract was entered into by and between a companypany, Indian Farmers Pvt.
The Company had issued six cheques of the following description in favour of the appellant Sl.
The said writ petition, as indicated hereinbefore, was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
Is taken.
The appellant herein entered into a companytract with the Respondent No.
Pursuant to the said agreement JBHL made payments for the purchase of shares of IFPL.
The said order of stay is said to have been extended from time to time.
Emphasis supplied It was accepted that for securing the payment for supply of stone chips post dated cheques used to be given.
P4 companyplaint Interim relief by way of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said companyplaint petition including the arrest of the petitioners pending final disposal of the said writ petition was also prayed for.
A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 25.1.2005 passed the following order Notice and interim stay for six months.
35,48,640/ a sum of Rs.
The prayers made in the said writ petition were a to quash the companyplaint lodged by JBHL or in the alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maghalaya to transfer the investigation being companyducted by the officers of CID at Shillong to the Economic Offences Wing, General Branch of CID, Mumbai or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police, and b to issue a writ of prohibition or any other order or direction restraining the Special SP Police, CID, Shillong and or any investigating agency of the Meghalaya Police from taking any further step in respect of the companyplaint lodged by JBHL with the police authorities at Shillong.
The maintainability of the said companyplaint came to be questioned by Majithia by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed.
In the aforementioned situation a companyplaint was filed by the JBHL against the appellant at Shillong.
The appellant on the aforementioned allegations filed a companyplaint petition in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri which was registered as CC No.
The appellant alleged that a sum of Rs.
It was further companytended that the jurisdiction to investigate into the companytents of the companyplaint was only with the police companyrts in Mumbai.
The respondents admit the claim of the appellant.
Ltd. IFPL and Chinar Exort Ltd. CEL .
However, the statements made in the companyplaint petition to the effect that a payment of a sum of Rs.
5,33,795 2.
455998 10.07.2004 Rs.
455999 10.08.2004 Rs.
455993 10.06.2004 Rs.
455994 10.07.2004 Rs.
455995 10.08.2004 Rs.
35,48,640 The aforementioned cheques were deposited with Mayurakhi Gramin Bank Suri branch but they were returned by the Banker stating full companyer number received.
A demand numberice was sent by the appellant demanding payment of the said cheque to the respondent in September, 2004.
4 on or about 15.9.2004.
Considered.
5,33,795/ was paid by respondent No.
Arising out of SLP C No.
The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for companysideration of the question but cannot be the sole companysideration in the matter.
6656 of 2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
455997 10.06.2004 Rs.
5,33,795 3.
5,33,795 4.
6,49,085 5.
6,49,085 6.
6,49,085 Total Rs.
Despite receipt of the summons instead of appearing before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which was registered as W.P. C No.
30,14,845/ is still due and owing to him from the respondents.
Some purported questions of law have been raised in the said writ petition companytending as to why the order taking companynizance was bad in law including that in term of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the first respondent companyld number file one companyplaint in respect of all the dishonoured five cheques.
The companypany used to hand over post dated cheques to the appellant towards the price of stone chips as also transport, handling, postage and other charges.
They are said to have assured him that the rest of the amount shall be paid, but the same has number been done.
The respondents allegedly received the summons sent to them at Kolaghat, Midnapore, West Bengal.
The 1st petitioner companypany gave good business to the 1st respondent, paying him for than Rs.
Later the said suit was withdrawn upon the appellants returning the amount paid by CEL which was earlier forfeited by the appellant.
339 of 2004.
A suit was filed by CEL in the High Court of Bombay for specific performance of the said agreement.
The IFPL terminated the agreement.
P4 companyplaint c issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.
The appellant herein filed a companyplaint petition in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri being CC No.
339 of 2004 alleging inter alia therein that several cheques of diverse sums issued by the respondent herein had been dishonoured, and, thus, they companymitted an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
CEL entered into an agreement with IFPL for purchase of the entire shares of IFPL for which it paid earnest money.
Two shareholders of CEL took over management and companytrol of the companypany as Directors and they formed another companypany named JBHL at Shilong in the State of Meghalaya.
