D.B.BHOSALE
Peacock Industries Ltd. . – Appellant
Versus
Budhrani Finance Ltd – Respondent
Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in WP Nos. 1659/05 and 2063/05: Niranjan Loposingh i/b Niranjan and Co.
For the Petitioners in WP Nos. 1876/05, 1959/05, 2328/05, 2561/05, 2666/05, 2667/05, 2913/05, 476/06, 591/06, 592/06, 593/06, 594/06, 615/06, 961/06, 1177/06, 1178/06, 1179/06, 160/06, 1035/06, and 1140/06, 997/06, 998/06: S.V. Marwadi i/b S.P. Narkar.
For the Petitioner in WP Nos. 1646/06 to 1665/06: A.P. Mundargi Sr. Cou. with Dinesh Purandate i/b Revati Mohite Dere, Jehangir Khajotia.
For the Petitioneer in WP No. 314/06 J.P. Shah i/b., A.S. Khan & Associates.
For the Petitioner in WP No. 525/06: Dilip Devadiga.
For the Petitioner in WP No. 1058/06: Kimaya M. Prajapati.
For the Petitioners in WP No. 1094/06: Annie Fernandes.
For the State in W.P. Nos. 1659/05, 476/06, 1177/06 & 2192/05: S.R. Shinde, APP.
For the State in WP No. 1876/05, 1646/06 to 1665/06: M.M. Deshmukh, APP.
For the State in WP Nos. 1959/05, 314/06, 997/06, 1179/06, 1140/06: M.H. Mhatre, APP.
For the State in WP Nos. 2063/05, 2100/05, 2328/05, 2561/05, 2666/05, 2667/05, 2913/05, 525/06 & 615/06.
For the State in W.P. Nos. 591/06, 592/06, 592/06, 593/06, 594/06, 961/06, 1035/06 and 1094/06.U.V. Nikam, APP.
For the State in WP No. 1058/06, 1178/06: P.A. Pol, APP.
For the Respondent No. 1 in WP No. 1659/05, Vandana Jaisingh.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 2100/05:A.A. Chavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 1876/05: A.A. Chavan
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 1876/05: A.A. Chavan.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 1959/05, A.S. Khan & Associates.
For the Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 2100/05, Shrikant Shrimani.
For the Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 160/05, Divya S. Sanghavi.
For the Respondent No. 2 in W.P. Nos. 2328/05, 3191/05, Sanjog S. Parab.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 2561/05, 2566/05, 2667/05: Mihir Gheewala with J.P. Shah i/b A.S. Khan and Assoc.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 2192/05: A.H. Aney, Sr. Counsel.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 2913/05: Preti Shan
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 314/06: Amol V. Doijode.
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 525/06: Kafil Khan and Savita Mundra
For the Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 997/06, 998/06: Udaipuri i/b Udiapuri and Co.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in WP No. 1160/06: Michael D’Souza.
Judgment
Bhosale D.B., J.—The question raised in this group of writ petitions are common, the fact situation against which they are raised is similar and though the parties are different they all arise from somewhat similar Orders and hence this group of petitions is being disposed of by common Judgment.
2. The questions that fall for my consideration are as under:
(a)Whether sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, “the Act”) confers an unfettered right on the complainant and the accused to apply to the Court seeking direction to give oral examination-in-chief, of a person giving evidence on affidavit, even in respect of the facts stated therein and that if such a right is exercised, whether the Court is obliged to examine such a person in spite of the mandate of Section 145(1) of the Act?
(b)Whether the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, (for short “the amending Act of 2002”) are applicable o the complaints under Section 138 of the Act pending on the date on which the amendment came into force? In other words, do the amended provisions of Section
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
