SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

YUSUF KARIM KHAN – Appellant
Versus
ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. CIN NO. L24239MH1983PLC – Respondent
IA 760/2021



1/2

35.IA-760-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.760 OF 2021

IN

COMPANY PETITION NO.488 OF 2015

Yusuf Karim Khan

....Applicant

In the matter between :

Puspaben C. Jhaveri (HUF)

….Petitioner

V/s.

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited

….Respondent

----

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra a/w. Ms. Madhuri Amare-Machado i/b. Solicis Lex

for applicant.

Mr. Mahendhar Aithe, Company Prosecutor present.

----

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 6th APRIL 2021

P.C. :

1

Mr. Aithe states that even they have not been served a copy of

the application though it has been lodged on 16th February 2021. I have,

however, considered the application and the reliefs sought in the

application.

2

Applicant used to work as Executive Professional Director of the

company (in liquidation). It appears that there are many complaints filed

against the company and its Directors/Promoters/persons in-charge under

the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. Applicant is also arrayed as co-accused in those

cases, a list whereof applicant has provided in paragraph 13 of the

application. According to applicant, applicant is not liable and therefore, is

Gauri Gaekwad

2/2

35.IA-760-2021.doc

seeking to add applicant as respondent to the company petition and also to

call for the records and proceedings of the cheque bounce cases against

applicant and quash all those cheque bounce cases against applicant.

3

This is not the forum which can quash the proceedings under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Applicant may take

such defence as he deems fit in the Magistrates’ Court where the cases are

pending or take out such proceedings in the appropriate forum for quashing

of those proceedings as he may be advised.

4

In view thereof, the question of adding applicant as respondent

to the petition also does not arise.

5

Interim application accordingly stands dismissed.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Gauri Gaekwad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top