J.V.BAHARUNI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on
October 16,2014
J.V.Baharuni
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHASKAR @ PRABASKAR AND ORS. VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VOLLOR TALUK POLICE STATION,VELLORE [REFERRED TO]MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PAYARE LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON 1 VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON III VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR PATNA [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARAKHATOON IV VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR PATNA [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHOORAJI [REFERRED TO]
SATYAJIT BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
MANDVI CO OP BANK LTD VS. NIMESH B THAKORE [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
NITINBHAI SAEVATILAL SHAH VS. MANUBHAI MANJIBHAI PANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH AGARWAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
A KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAMPAT JAGTAP VS. RAJAN HIRALAL ARORA [REFERRED TO]
RAMILABEN TRIKAMLALSHAH VS. TUBE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA PANDURANG SALVI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD HUSSAIN ALIAS JULFIKAR ALI VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI [REFERRED TO]
TRIPTI VYAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE PALLEI VS. ARUNA KUMAR PANDA [REFERRED TO]
BHARATI TAMANG VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANESHA VS. SHARANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MEHSANA NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD VS. SHREEJI CAB CO [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
PARESH MANNA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-55] [REFERRED TO]JAIN ENAMEL WORKS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
SHARNAPPA VS. C. YALLAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-309] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAIAH VS. K S CHOWDAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM S/O GOPIKISAN SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-429] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.BENHUR TRADES AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. SHAKUNTALA AGARWAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-742] [REFERRED TO]
A.P. KUMARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-134] [REFERRED TO]
M.G. RAJU VS. H.T. RAVINDRA KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-138] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANA W/O.RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. JOHN THOMAS AND ANR. [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MARTIS VS. M. MOHAMMED AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RAKESH RAMKISHOR KHURANA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-196] [REFERRED TO]
SALMAN SALIM KHAN VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHNAWAZ VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-183] [REFERRED TO]
METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KANCHAN MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. BINU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
K. ABRAHAM VS. B.V.N. REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
MAHATHRU TECHNOLOGIES VS. CREATIVE INFOTECH [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-347] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP VERMA VS. BUDH DEV KALIA [LAWS(HPH)-2019-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
USHMABEN DINESHBHAI GOHEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEO GANESHRAM TARDEJA VS. RAJESH DAYARAM SADHWANI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-98] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIM VS. A.T. VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
KARMAYOGI SHANKARRAOJI PATIL VS. RUIA AND RUIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY JAIN VS. STATE & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-364] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD RADESHYAM AGRAWAL & ORS. VS. ASHOK SHYAMSUNDER ZINZUNWALA & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-193] [REFERRED TO]
HELCINO ALEIXO FERNANDES VS. MILIND MADHUKAR BHENDE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRADHAN MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIRGIN APPARELS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN [LAWS(KAR)-2022-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The undisputed facts of the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5623 of 2012 are that Appellant No. 2 is the owner of Appellant No. 1 Company. The Respondent No. 2, who is in the business of manufacture, process and marketing of petroleum products, has a 'Company Owned Company Operated' retail outlet at Village Gadu, Maliya Hatina Taluq, District Junagadh, Gujarat. Appellants entered into a contract with the Respondent No. 2 Corporation for performing various contractual jobs. As per the terms of the contract, the Appellants were required to undertake the contracted jobs and to deposit the money out of sale proceeds on a daily basis in the State Bank of India, Veraval Branch. The business dealings between the parties were going on since 1996 and in terms of the contract Appellants furnished to the Respondent No. 2, two Cheques bearing Nos. 884572 and 884574, dated 24th June, 2000 for Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs, respectively. When the cheques were presented for realization, they bounced with the endorsement "not arranged for". Hence, Respondent No. 2 initiated criminal proceedings Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') against the Appellants and filed Criminal Complaint No. 2131 of 2000.
(3.)Before the Trial Court it was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 2--Corporation that the cheques in question were issued by the Appellants to discharge their part liability for clearing the dues whereas the case of the Appellants was that there were no dues payable to the Respondent Corporation and the Cheques were taken by the complainant--Corporation as 'guarantee' and misused the same.
(2.)The undisputed facts of the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5623 of 2012 are that Appellant No. 2 is the owner of Appellant No. 1 Company. The Respondent No. 2, who is in the business of manufacture, process and marketing of petroleum products, has a 'Company Owned Company Operated' retail outlet at Village Gadu, Maliya Hatina Taluq, District Junagadh, Gujarat. Appellants entered into a contract with the Respondent No. 2 Corporation for performing various contractual jobs. As per the terms of the contract, the Appellants were required to undertake the contracted jobs and to deposit the money out of sale proceeds on a daily basis in the State Bank of India, Veraval Branch. The business dealings between the parties were going on since 1996 and in terms of the contract Appellants furnished to the Respondent No. 2, two Cheques bearing Nos. 884572 and 884574, dated 24th June, 2000 for Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs, respectively. When the cheques were presented for realization, they bounced with the endorsement "not arranged for". Hence, Respondent No. 2 initiated criminal proceedings Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') against the Appellants and filed Criminal Complaint No. 2131 of 2000.
(3.)Before the Trial Court it was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 2--Corporation that the cheques in question were issued by the Appellants to discharge their part liability for clearing the dues whereas the case of the Appellants was that there were no dues payable to the Respondent Corporation and the Cheques were taken by the complainant--Corporation as 'guarantee' and misused the same.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.