Vijay Chandela Vs. Cable Sales and Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........the petitioner, vijay chandela seeks setting aside the order of 29.10.2002 whereby an application for discharge filed by him was dismissed by the court of additional session judge, delhi. the complaint against the petitioner was filed under section 138 of negotiable instruments act in which the cheque in question was issued on behalf of the accused no. 1 company. the petitioner alleged that he was merely a manager of the company and was not liable to be prosecuted under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the memorandum of association and the account opening form of the bank to show that one r.k. jain and one neelam jain had been responsible for the conduct of the business of the company respondent no. 1. the question whether the petitioner was responsible for the affairs of the company and liable for prosecution under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act cannot be decided at this stage on the basis of the documents filed by the defense. the complainant alleged that the petitioner had been representing himself to be director of the company. further, although the company may be initially incorporated with certain directors the directors keep changing from time to time. the petitioner may prove during trial his status in the company with reference to appropriate documents which he may bring in his defense. in a recent judgment in state of orissa v. debendra nath padhi the supreme court re-examined its view in satish mehra v. delhi administration and anr. and held that at the time of framing of charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. in view this judgment also the petitioner cannot ask the court to discharge him on the basis of documents filed by him. the complainant, who says that the petitioner represented himself to be the director of the company cannot be deprived of an opportunity to prosecute him without having been given a fair chance to prove.....