Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PENTAFOUR PRODUCTS LIMITED versus LIC MUTUAL FUND LIMITED,BOMBAY 400 021

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pentafour Products Limited v. LIC Mutual Fund Limited,Bombay 400 021 - W.A.No.204 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 86 (2 February 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02/02/2005

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN

W.A.No.204 of 2005

and

W.A.M.P.No.337 of 2005

1. Pentafour Products Limited,

rep. by its Director Mr.V.Ramakrishnan,

Chennai.

2. Pentafour Soler Technology Ltd.,

rep. by its Director Mr.V.Ramakrishnan,

Chennai. ..Appellants.

-Vs-

LIC Mutual Fund Limited,

No.17, Thakur Chambers,

Nariman Point,

Bombay 400 021. ..Respondent. PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.11.2004 in W.V.M.P.No.1090 of 2004 in W.P.M.P.No.40135 of 2003 in W.P.No.33166 of 2003, as stated therein. For Appellants :: Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

For Respondent :: Mr.Manikumar, A.C.G.S.C.

:J U D G M E N T



(The Order of the Court was delivered by The Honble The Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been field against the impugned order dated 23.11.2004. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the appeal.

2. It appears that the appellant had prayed that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be not initiated against it or its Directors or officers. It is well-settled principle vide State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 5 22, Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crim.) 426, etc. that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in criminal proceedings unless on a perusal of the First Information Report or the complaint, even treating the allegations therein to be correct, no offence has been made out. If an offence is prima facie made out on a perusal of the First Information Report or the complaint, treating the allegations therein to be true, then the High Court cannot interfere and the accused has to face the criminal proceedings. In our opinion, in this case, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out. We have also not been shown that recovery proceedings has been initiated against the appellant. Hence, in our opinion, the writ petition itself was premature in that connection. There are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Connected WAMP is also dismissed. Index: Yes

Internet: Yes

Jai/sm




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.