Telangana High Court
Baddam Gangadhar, Karimnagar Dist. And ... vs Judicial First Class Magistrate And ... on 4 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.6353 OF 2009
ORDER:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) Mr. G. Sundaresam, learned counsel represents the petitioners.
Mr. Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel representing Mr. Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for the erstwhile High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
".. to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in deliberately, intentionally, mala fide in collusion with the 2nd respondent issuing a cheque bearing Nos.(a) 201890, dt. 10.11.2008, for CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 2 Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) drawn on S.B.H. Metpally, which is payable to M/s. Manjeera Securities, Metpally, to the 2nd respondent in his personal capacity contrary to the documentary evidence as being illegal, unjust arbitrary and violative of principles of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts:
Petitioners herein and 2nd respondent are partners of M/s. Manjeera Securities, Metpally, and Partnership Deed was drawn on 08.04.1996. One Mr. G.V. Mohan Reddy took loan for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s. Manjeera Securities for his business and failed to repay the loan amount. 2nd respondent as Managing Partner of M/s. Manjeera Securities filed C.C.No.453 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally, against Mr. G.V. Mohan Reddy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 3 recovery of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally, was pleased to dismiss the said C.C.No.453 of 1998 by judgment dated 12.10.2001 by acquitting the accused on the premise that the 2nd respondent is not authorized to represent the Firm. Aggrieved by the said judgment, matter was carried in appeal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide Crl.A.No.1810 of 2001. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was pleased to reverse the judgment dated 10.06.2008 holding that the 2nd respondent was adequately empowered to represent the Firm and that the complaint was properly instituted by the 2nd respondent herein.
4. It is stated in the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent that the accused in C.C.No.453 of 1998 deposited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and that 2nd respondent made an application for issuance of cheque and 1st respondent issued cheque in the name CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 4 of 2nd respondent. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that the application for issuance of cheque was filed in the representative capacity as Managing Partner and Authorized Signatory of M/s. Manjeera Securities.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners that the borrower Mr. G.V. Mohan Reddy was due an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and he issued a cheque bearing No.A 201890 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 10.11.2008 in favour of 2nd respondent, though payable to M/s.Manjeera Securities. That the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to re-deposit the amount, as the amount was not deposited, having no other alternative, a complaint was registered on 19.12.2008 as to the fraud committed by respondents. As no action was initiated on the said complaint, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 5
6. It is submitted by 2nd respondent counsel that the order in C.C.No.453 of 1998 dated 12.10.2001 was passed acquitting the accused on the premise that the 2nd respondent was not authorized to represent the Firm, but on appeal to High Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was pleased to reverse the judgment in Crl.A.No.1810 of 2001 dated 10.06.2008 holding that the 2nd respondent was empowered to represent the Firm and that the complaint was properly instituted as Managing Partner of the Firm. It is also submitted that, subsequent to the judgment of the High Court cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent and there is no irregularity as averred by petitioners and that there are no merits and the writ petition be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent adopted arguments of 2nd respondent and further submitted that the 1st respondent was right in issuing a cheque in CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 6 favour of the 2nd respondent, Managing Partner of M/s.Manjeera Securities.
8. Heard learned counsels, perused the entire record and the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.
9. Considered the rival submissions. This Court is of the opinion that if any grievance of petitioners was subsisting, they had a remedy to approach the appropriate Court and seek rendition of accounts of the Firm including the amounts received by the 2nd respondent. Instead of choosing to avail the remedy of approaching the appropriate Court/Forum, petitioners filed writ petition. The 1st respondent directed to issue the cheque in favour of 2nd respondent only on the basis of the judgment rendered in Crl.A.No.1810 of 2001. The impleadment of 1st respondent is not necessitated and uncalled for.
CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.6353 of 2009 7
10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:04.01.2024 KH