2015 (1) TMI 1434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before this Court. This Court has issued notice to the Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. The learned Public Prosecution Mr. Nalavade for the Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, is present. 2. The grievance of the petitioner's is that the learned Magistrate has returned the complaint despite the fact that the cheque was dishonoured at Silvassa by Silvassa Branch of State Bank of India though it was drawn on State Bank of India, Ghaziabad Branch. Since it was cheque at par, the same was dishonoured by the branch of State Bank of India situated at Silvassa. In view of judgment of this Court in case of Ramanbhai Mathurabhai Patel v. The State of Maharashtra Criminal Writ Petition No. 2362 of 2014, the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....up. The appeal filed by the appellant-company under Section 25 of the Act against said order dated January 7, 1991. As a result of these orders, no proceedings under the Act was pending either before the Board or before the Appellate Authority on February 21, 1991 when the Delhi High Court passed the interim order staying the operation of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991. The said stay order of the High Court cannot have the effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any proceedings under the Act were pending before the Board or the Appellate Authority 1012 on the date of the passing of the order dated August 14, 1991 by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for winding up of the company or on November 6, 1991 when the Division Bench passed the order dismissing O.S.A No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the responden....