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
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
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
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
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
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
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
