High Court Karnataka High Court

Vadiraj Pharamaceutical … vs M/S Etm Vaidyasala on 3 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Vadiraj Pharamaceutical … vs M/S Etm Vaidyasala on 3 June, 2011
Author: B.V.Pinto
I

{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'f£'AKA AT  

1313:3313 THIS THE: 322» DA§if,QE' JL_J'§VFE,*--i"'E:  _  H
BEFQRE:  « ' V V

THE: HQNBLE: Ix/;R§§"L;s*1*1'::v:*«:V:1+:,V.Ji%f_m"@%. 

CRL.A.NQ.289 Qf"'-209.5 {SJ}  vfi

BETWEEN:

'JADIRAJ ..I'?'{Af~1;\}\£PxC:E§L?'I'ICA2;'DISTR£BUTORS.
APARTN§:,Rs;~;;H1:> CONCERN,  " 
HA\.?'IN'G ms FLAGB-.QE"'BUSII*~I_}:1SS SITUATED
AT V7AI}1R2'\..J:";COl\'IPLE:§{, '. W' FLOOR
ET::>.BY ms
PARTN_ERS St SEJRESH SHET, AG E21155 YEARS
R;'1.A*r;vADH:RAgIA., SHIVABHAGPI ROAD,
KADRI; LMANVGALORE CETY
 ' _ ' _  "  ...APPELLANT
. {BY SR1.B.SE~*I'ARA'TH KUMAR, ADV}

 _ ~ M/_1s E."RM \/'AIDYASALA

' ~  A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, HAVING
*  ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUA'I'EI_)
" AT OLLUR M 880 338% KERALA

MR. E T. DEVAKARAN MQOSS
PARTN ER }EZ,T¢ M. 'JAEDYASALA
R/AT. CHAHU CHAKYAR ROAD
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
KEJRALA

E; 5?' E\§:'%§%5iYA:\§AN E'=fIQC}SS

90





2

PAR'I'NE1R, E.'I'.M.'€AXDYASg~X};A

R/AT.SIE\'DU VIHAR

PEZRUMBILLISSERY, C}*§EfiI{PLE

"FE~£RISSUR, KERALA

4» KPREMKUMAR .   -1' , 4.

MANAGER, E.T.M.X?AIE}YA$.{'~3;;A  " _ 
MANHVEANDIR, "F£iAIE{K.€{£""£"€§RSTERRYV pr 0   _ '
0LLUR,\f1A'mE1s:S_L%R 68.0322  1
KEZRALA     "

5. UMA ANTEIARAJA.N;'\.Ni. '_
PARTN ER, ._E:iI?. M'.vAIVDms;x: 
OLLUR 680806, §*{E3F:ALA'  " .
"   f  ';;.:_RE:":31>QN1>ENT$
{BY SRI.K.N.KRI'SE__iNAA1\EDa *._ ' 
ASSOCIATES; EOE     
sR1.G.BALA1~:R1s'§j:_;\:.A~vs}1A:3frR\:, ADv.mR R2.
R: &R4(S;D).;' "   "  
R5 --~ ABA? '*<;._ ,

V5rH:$ (:'R§,¢;~AfiS"«§1L.§;D -U/S.3'?8(A} CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE: FOR.  APEELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE§,COUR.' 'M;:aY'*i3E PLEASED TO SET ASEDEZ THE
ORDER DT.2'3/7,3041 "PASSED BY THE 1 ADDL.CJM.
MA:;J'c;AL0RE;» :N'C.c:.No.536/02. P/U/S 138 N1 ACT.

V' WIS <:RL.AVié"C0M1NG FOR HEARING ON 22-115 DAY,

' $313: c:*.§)URf: ";r:v:AD1A: THE FOLLOWING.

JUDGMENT

A is filed by the c«:;mp1a:na;:: /aging

:h;aVI0:”e in

“3

.3

C.C.N0.536/2002. wherein t/hf: _1§::a1_f12ed_–‘ ”

dismissed the compiaint for»-._ 1A1:;)’:T:.:-prasec:Liiii{§1§”=., 2%:~;:;:g;1

COI1sequent1j,.2 zacéquiiized ‘ih€–,_ .21<it(::1v3ed of gyfffczzcsfi.- '

under Section 138 ofN.I.A<::t._ b

2. Héiafd Sri ~Fj3.Sh:~1’ré1tEi: u§{u.:11211′; “é:h’€% iearned
Courzsel for thee 21ppe1’i–a11t_, 1

3. It is§~vsé€; i~frQ:;f;1 of tha trial Court
that the ;Cbi%:piaifV1:.’xx%;;-fifi’*f1;1€}i06.10.1995 and the
learned”‘E\.«’Ea:§§;%st1:.§i%;;i– H’;-;.V§”–.t’a1r;é’I”1fiéggnizexnce of the offence
in thé”:_y€a’.’r was ordered on accused on
O7.O1.2{u)VOZé.M ‘V :f;I’0W€~’Y’ér.,.”~~'”the Case was transferred from

L4 IV JMFC. -A V Curt, Mangaiere an

2A§;’;1j”;”>;’Qfi::5′._._ and thereaftexz on 23.07.2004 the

was passed, it is seen that right from

22′:.«.1At;he Court hag issuad NEW {cs the zémtscused

due tc;..i”heir nexzwappearanca and it is flifilhffi’ seen ihaé:

A’ ‘:;h€:_A::0mpiain:1n%f¢ vazass pF%3S€I}fl an ::7<<3ri:a§:1 :){t:':a:«s§:1s5,

4

4. Sri B.Sharai:h Kumar. 1e21rm/id C1.0L:i’:’i:_sevE “i7oi” this ‘

appceilam; submits the CTOf11p1£;1iI1E1_E}'{iE*s_ -:’::–;_{_{A1E2::*_V”£3133

diiigent in proceeding \Vi{‘h?1:,h€i rr::a.t¢’t=er besfbrfe}'”t,i1e’;tfiai’–..

Court and hence, prays ‘i:h_§: be
restored to its ac<:u5ee:i_
have issued 3 C_h€qLx§e..f©§. in respect
of the '3;i11'§::'h€f1C€, in ordésr to
rende:__f_}4i}–. f;.oVV'a110\x? this appeal and
remai-yd t,1'.ia1" Court for fresh disposal
in aCCdfd%flCé securing the respondents.

He:;§:?e,LA:he .

L % ORDER
xi is allowed.

a ‘i”1£e Grder dated 2307,2004 passed by the
V’ JMFC M V Court in C.C:,N’0,536g’20{}2 is set
aside and the m21t/1,91′ is reniazzded is {he saaid

Coax”: with 2:. directiotz is dispcge cf the n121t,:;€1*

if

5

in a<':c:0rda11s::e with law aftfitr SQ'/{?1,4£'4}'ivY"1'§i§*i'gfiléi'

pI'€S€:11C€ of the: accused fhfiffiili.

th€ Office is dire<;?tVed to tV1*a11ssf;3it¢
said Court.

?S§%E

nwj