AMIT BORKAR
Lyka Labs Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhomesh Bellam, Mr. Karma Vivan i/by Mr. Jugal Kanani for the applicant in APL/1205/2022, 1207/2022, 1208/2022 & 886/2022.
Mr. Jatin P. Shah with Ms. Snehankita M. Munj & Ms. Shraddha Kamble for respondent no.2 in APL/1205/ 2022, 1207/2022 & APL/886/2022.
Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey with Mr. Arvind Tiwari for the petitioner in WP/1250/2022.
Mr. Kunal Dalal for respondent no.1 in WP/2075/2022.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Ms. Keral Mehta, Ms. Anisha Nair, and Mr. Khalid Kazi i/by Vis Legis Law Practice for the petitioner in WP/2644/2022.
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia with Ms. Nikita Singh i/by Res Juris for respondent no.2 in WP/2644/2022.
Mr. Sukrut Mhatre i/by Jyotirmai Deshmukh for the petitioner in WP/201/2022 & WP/4128/2022.
Mr. Maniram R. Gaud for the petitioner in WP/2075/2022.
Ms. Priya Rita i/by Disha Karambar & Associates for respondent no.2 in WP/201/2022 & WP/1250/2022.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Mr. veerdhawal Deshmukh i/by Mr. Naved Askari for the petitioner in WP/3443/2022.
Ms. Y.N. Katpitia with Ms. R.B. Mrolia i/by Kry Legal for respondent no.2 in WP/3443/2022.
Mr. Ansh Karnawat with Mr. Paras Yadav and Mr. Vivek Babar i/by Ruturaj Bankar for the applicants in APL/967/2022.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Ankhad, Mr. Vishal Narichania, Mr. Tushar Gujjar, Mr. Deepak Singh, and Briti Machdani i/by SL Partners for respondent no.2 in WP/4128/2022.
Ms. Jaldhara Shah with M. Shrinidhi i/by Bharucha & Partners for respondent no.1 in APL/967/2022.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkitesh Dutt Tiwari and Bency Ramkrishnan i/by Akash Menon for applicant in APL/240/2021.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh i/by SKS Juris for respondent no.2 in APL/240/2021.
Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganpathy with Ms. Sayee Sawant and Ms. Savani Vaze for the petitioner in WP/4576/2022.
Mr. Rishi Bhuta with Mr. Suraj Iyer, Mani Thevar, Ms. Kavita Sharma, Ms. Ankita Bamboli, Mr. Prateek Dutta, Ms. Saakshi Jha, Mr. Aashish Dubey, Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, Mr. Anurag Ghag and Mr. K.R. Shah i/by Ganesh Co. for the petitioner in WP/4455/2022.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State.
JUDGMENT
This is a batch of matters before me wherein the same common question of law arises for decision. Accordingly, I propose (also as has been agreed to by all the learned counsel appearing for the parties) to decide only the principle question of law posed for decision and leave the individual cases to be decided accordingly. Hence, I am relieved of the need of noticing facts of individual cases.
(i) Whether the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is the “drawer” and whether such signatory could be directed to pay interim compensation in terms of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter “NI Act”, for short) living aside the company.”
(ii) Whether a deposit of a minimum sum of 20% of the fine or compensation is necessary under Section 148 of NI Act in an appeal filed by persons other than “drawer” against the conviction and sentence under section 138 of the NI Act.
2. Mr. Ponda learned senior advocate on behalf of the accused made the following submissions:—
(i) As per section 143A, only a ‘drawer’ of the cheque is required to pay interim compensation and no one else. To attract liability under section 138 of the NI Act, the chequ
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
