Bharat Chandulal Bhanushali v. Meena Vinod Lakhani And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.451 OF 2020 Bharat Chandulal Bhanushali ...

Petitioner

Versus

Meena Vinod Lakhani & Anr.

...

Respondents .....

Mr.Satish S. Mande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Mahendra Shingade with Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

Mr.S.V.Gavand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2/State.

....

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

DATED : 4 th MARCH 2020.

P.C. :

Heard both sides.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that liability of the petitioner can at the most be of Rs.35,00,000/- in view of the Memorandum of understanding dated 13/03/2013 as well as second Memorandum of Understanding dated 10/10/2018. He submits that the 1/3

petitioner/original accused has only received amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in directing payment of Rs.34,00,000/- towards 20% of the amount of cheque .

I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the impugned Order.

The impugned Order is perfectly in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Surinder Singh Deswal @ COL. S.S. Deswal & Ors. Versus Virender Gandhi & Anr.

1 and as such it requires no inference at the hands of this Court. The cheque was for Rs.1,70,00,000/- and the learned trial Court while passing order on the application moved by the applicant under Section 143-A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had directed the accused to pay an amount quantified at 20% of the cheque amount. Clause No.8 of the second memorandum of understanding executed executed between the parties is clear on that aspect. Hence, the Order : 2019 CRI.L.J. 3507.

2/3

ORDER

The Petition is dismissed.

(A.M.BADAR, J.) Raju D.

Gaikwad by Raju D.

Gaikwad Date: 2020.03.04 17:33:52 +0530 3/3