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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HARENDRA RAMCHANDRA PATHAK – Appellant
Versus
DHARMENDRA RATAN MHATRE and ANR – Respondent
APEAL 684/2003



Advocates:
['SHRI RAJESH S DATAR', '', 'V P FILED', 'P P', 'BALI ASSOCIATES', '', 'RESP NO']

1/13

202.Apeal-684-2003 and Apeal-685-2003.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.684 OF 2003

Harendra Ramchandra Pathak

Adult, Occ.: Business,

residing at Rekha Apartment, Usha Nagar,

Murbad Road, Kalyan, Taluka – Kalyan,

District – Thane

)

)

)

)

)….Appellant/Complainant

V/s.

1. Dharmendra Ratan Mhatre

Adult, Occ.: Business

residing at Ratnasunit Bungalow

Kopar Road, Near S.E.I. High School

Building, Dombivli (W), Taluka – Kalyan,

District – Thane

)

)

)

)

)

)

2. The State of Maharashtra

)….Respondents/Accused

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.685 OF 2003

Harendra Ramchandra Pathak

Adult, Occ.: Business,

residing at Rekha Apartment, Usha Nagar,

Murbad Road, Kalyan, Taluka – Kalyan,

District – Thane

)

)

)

)

)….Appellant/Complainant

V/s.

1. Rajendra Ratan Mhatre

Adult, Occ.: Business

residing at Ratnasunit Bungalow

Kopar Road, Near S.E.I. High School

Building, Dombivli (W), Taluka – Kalyan,

District – Thane

)

)

)

)

)

)

2. The State of Maharashtra

)….Respondents/Accused

----

Ms. Rajesh S. Datar for appellant in both appeals.

Mr. B.K. Bali a/w. Mr. Mohsin Khan i/b. Bali Associates for respondent no.1

in both appeals.

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for respondent no.2 – State in both appeals.

----

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATE : 10th JANUARY 2020

Gauri Gaekwad

2/13

202.Apeal-684-2003 and Apeal-685-2003.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1

These are two appeals impugning an order and judgment dated

20th November 2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, First

Court, Kalyan, acquitting respondent no.1 in both appeals of offences

punishable under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of

funds in the account) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the said Act).

2

Mr. Datar and Mr. Bali state that these are two appeals which

could be disposed together because both the appeals arise out of the same

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Two separate appeals are filed

because two separate complaints were filed as the accused in both the

complaint were different, the complainant being common.

3

Complainant and two accused were shareholders of one Shree

Sai Baba Sand Dredging Company Private Limited (the said Company).

Complainant, through himself and through others, held 2000 fully paid

equity shares in the said company. It is not necessary to go into the

background of the companies and how it works, suffice to say complainant

wanted to exit and offered to sell 2000 shares to the two accused.

Complainant personally had only 400 shares in his name, whereas the

remaining 1600 shares were held by his wife (400 shares), his son

(400 shares), his friend one Rizwan Gulam Murtaja Dolare (400 shares) and

Farbida Dolare (400 shares). The accused agreed to purchase the

2000 shares for lump sum consideration of Rs.18 lakhs. The understanding

between the two parties were reduced to writing in the form of a

Gauri Gaekwad

3/13

202.Apeal-684-2003 and Apeal-685-2003.doc

Memorandum of Association/Understanding dated 3rd September 1996. As

per the MOU, two cheques of Rs.3 lakhs each dated 30th September 1996 and

31st October 1996 were issued. The balance Rs.12 lakhs were to be paid in

installments by issuing 12 post dated cheques of Rs.1 lakh each. These

12 cheques were issued. Cheque no.030784 dated 1st December 1997 for

Rs.1 lakh is the subject matter of the complaint in appeal no.684 of 2003.

Four cheques, i.e., cheque no.087476 dated 1st November 1997, cheque

no.087477 dated 1st January 1998, cheque no.087478 dated 1st February

1998 and cheque no.087479 dated 1st March 1998, each of Rs.1 lakh, are

subject matter of the complaint in appeal no.685 of 2003. The MOU is short

and it would be useful to reproduce the MOU and the same reads as under :

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION/UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Association/Understanding entered at KALYAN

this 3rd day of September, 1996 between:

1. Shri. RAJENDRA RATAN MHATRE, age

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