The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder Taparia, Akai Impex Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Banking |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Jul-27-2006 |
| Cri.W.P. Nos. 928 to 933 of 2006 |
| D.B. Bhosale, J. |
| II(2007)BC706 |
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -Sections 138 |
| The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. |
| Shyam Sunder Taparia, Akai Impex Ltd. and ors. |
| Kartik Somsundaram, Adv., i/b., ;Paras Kuhad, Adv.;A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. in WP Nos. 928/06 and 933/06, ;M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. in WP No. 929/06, ;R.Y. Mirza, A.P.P. in WP No. 930/06, ;M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P |
| M.P. Dalvi, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 |
.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an..........of the apex court and the citation thereof while dismissing all the complaints relying upon the said judgment. his approach while passing drastic orders, dismissing the complaints under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 filed by the bank involving huge amounts, was absolutely casual. the courts should exhibit from their conduct and their orders, concerned for the justice to be done in the cases and not casualness, as seen from the impugned order in the present case. the learned counsel for the parties have fairly agreed that i need not examine the merits of the case and record reasons for setting aside the impugned order and that all the matters be remanded to the sessions court for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law. in the circumstances i am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice.4. the orders impugned in all the writ petitions dated 19.1.2006 are quashed and set aside. all the revisions stand restored to file. the sessions court shall decide all the revisions on merits in accordance with law and by passing speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of.....
D.B. Bhosale, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. All these writ petitions are directed against cryptic order passed by the Sessions Court on 19.1.2006 by which all the complaints filed by the petitioner-Bank have been dismissed. The order passed by the Sessions Court reads thus:
Ms. Joshi APP for State present. Ms. Pradhan Advocate for applicant and Ms. Sagar Advocate for the Respondent are present.
Heard.
In view of SMS Pharmaceuticals the case cannot be maintained against the present applicant. Complaints against them dismissed.
3. The Courts are not expected to pass such cryptic orders. The learned Judge, in the present case, ought to have record short reasons demonstrating as to how the case in hand was covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. : 2005CriLJ4140 . The learned Judge even did not feel it necessary to mention full title of the judgment of the Apex Court and the citation thereof while dismissing all the complaints relying upon the said judgment. His approach while passing drastic orders, dismissing the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the Bank involving huge amounts, was absolutely casual. The Courts should exhibit from their conduct and their orders, concerned for the justice to be done in the cases and not casualness, as seen from the impugned order in the present case. The learned Counsel for the parties have fairly agreed that I need not examine the merits of the case and record reasons for setting aside the impugned order and that all the matters be remanded to the Sessions Court for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice.
4. The orders impugned in all the writ petitions dated 19.1.2006 are quashed and set aside. All the revisions stand restored to file. The Sessions Court shall decide all the revisions on merits in accordance with law and by passing speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
5. With these observations all the writ petitions stand disposed of.