{"id":2748,"date":"2010-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-12T15:43:56","modified_gmt":"2015-12-12T10:13:56","slug":"ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DEcEM13EI\u00e9l:'2-oIj1.o\"'I. V\nBEFORE H V l .\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUS'I\"\u00a7CFL    \n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No.27o\/2067  Cl{'ll\\\/llI'-I.AL \n\nNos.271\/2007 TO 278 as: o\"RI,.R.P'.I\\Io';\"a22';'2:oo7  '\n\nCRL.A.Nos.270 TO 278\/2007--- _  \nBETWEEN: V _  5   I '\nM\/s.Vijaya Steel Ltdg\" '  ' __      _\nNo.37, II Phase, Peenya 1'n.dustr.Ia1--Area{_f .. \nBangalore -- 5SO_058\/W   l  3  \nRepresented 'b'31i.t*s GPA Holders '  as \n\n     I .\n\nS\/ o V.Rama_bh:att'a*--, .: 6~3..Years'\n\nR\/at  79\/ I , '\ufb02ew }3anIbo'o\u00ab13a2.aar\n\nBangalofe .-- $60 002  3 \"  4'  .. .Common Appellant\n\n(By  Aofvocate}\n\nI _ ' 1\u00bb . I\\\/I,\/'s;s~.II\\'\/*.I.oEII \n\n uby VAI'f;s..~Partners\n\n*  \"--.I'Impe1'LialA'ICourt, Cunninghanl Road\n No; 19,31 31- Floor, East Wing. Bangalore ~ 560 052.\n\n2. Sr\u00a7_IlK.M.M'ustaq\n\nV \"  Partner, M\/s.Modi\n\nflmperial Court, Cunningham Road\n\" No.19, 15' Floor, East Wing\nBangalore -- 560 052. ...CoInrnon Respondents<\/pre>\n
(By Sri.M’.Shivappa. Advocate}<\/p>\n
Criminal appeal nos. 270\/2010 to 278\/2010″-are filed
\nunder section 878(4) Cr.P.C., to set aside the.Vi1’~mp1_,1gned
\njudgments and orders dated 20.12.2000. “–p’asfsed-\u00ab in
\nCrl.A.No.1474\/2005, I475\/2005, I476\/2005,”’14?7)’200r5,<\/p>\n
1480\/2005, 1479\/2005, 1478\/2005;j .1481\/2005,
\n1482\/2005 respectively on the file of the–Presiding.Officer, <\/p>\n
Fast Track {Sessions} Judge-V, Bangalore Ci.i:y_.:’-v  V <\/p>\n
CRL.RP.No.322\/2007
\nBE I WEEN:\n<\/p>\n
1. M\/s.Modi  _
\nRepresented by its Partner  ”\n<\/p>\n
Sri.K.M.Mushtaq’_  f  0′   .,
\nImperial Court, CiL1n;ningha;m\u00bb Roa,:dapl
\nNo.19, 15* Floor, East’Wing  ‘ 2′ V
\nBangalore #560 052′.”.”& 2′ V’<\/p>\n
2. si~ii;K..M’.”Mus;i;aq ” 0
\nImperial {:’;ou_r’ti. y Cu_ri”ni_ngh’am Road
\nNo. 19, 1-“? F1~0’0r, ‘East Wing
\nBangalore -~.-_56.0\u00ab  …Petitioners<\/p>\n
[By Sri.M’Pa1aniapplan, TAdvocate}<\/p>\n
     Ltd.,
\n~. No;37,’l.ijPh’ase, Peenya Industrial Area
\nBangaioreje 560 058<\/p>\n
Represerited by its Power of Attorney
\nSri.VV.R1. Krishna Murthy<\/p>\n
‘  is 8\/0 V’.’Rama Bhata, Aged about 63 Years
\n _ R\/”at No.79\/1, New Bamboo Bazaar
\n Bangalore – 560 002. …Respondent<\/p>\n
 (By Sri. S.i\\\/lahesh, Advocate}<\/p>\n
This petition is filed under section 397(1) C’r._P.C., to
\nset aside the judgment and orders dated 20_12._20_06 in
\nCriminal Appeal No.147’3\/2005 on the file of”_Fa_s’t_ Track
\n(Sessions) Judge–V, Bangalore City and judgrn’eritVjand ;_or~:ier
\ndated 22.09.2005 passed in C.C.No.32014\/–1’999_by”‘the:X’J<\/p>\n
ACMM, Bangalore and acquit the petitionersl” \u00bb<\/p>\n
These appeals and revision  .()n_pli”loVr_fi’i1al’~.._
\nhearing this day, the Court delivered the fol~l.oWing; ~  <\/p>\n
J U  N T   <\/p>\n
In Criminal  C\/W Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
Nos.271\/2007._to 2753\/V2007,’  Limited is the<\/p>\n
comrrion”a:ppe1la:nlt  represented by one of its
\npartr1erl’S1’i. K.iVi..’Mds1,aq,,ai:e common respondents 1 8: 2. In
\nCriminalk Reyis_ioi~:,d “Petition No.322\/2007, M\/s.Modi.<\/p>\n
.I’f\u20aclpF\u00a2se11ted  of its partner Sri K.M.Mustaq are<\/p>\n
p slpetitviolners 81 2 and M\/s.Vijaya Steel Limited is the<\/p>\n
” . revsponden <\/p>\n
 AA 2. .0 -…’i”he appellant in all these appeals {hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
“.i_of.–as ‘complainant? had initiated complaints under section<\/p>\n
 200 Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.32014\/1999 to C.C.No.320i8\/1999,<\/p>\n
C.C.No.32060\/1999 to C.C.No.32064\/1999. for dishonour of<\/p>\n
W. c.-ea ::\u00ab~w-‘\u00bb..\n<\/p>\n
cheques drawn in favour of complainant by I–respondent
\nfirm, represented by its partners namely  and
\nK.M.Kaleemulla, who were arrayed as
\n[hereinafter referred to as accused 1 to
\nThe learned trial Judge held  land”\n<\/p>\n
offence punishable under’ s_ectiol1’1._v1’38 of’ll’l’tbe4_v’Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act, 1881 (for   Accused No.21<\/p>\n
K.M.l\\\/Iustaq, as a partner.’of   challenged
\nthe judgment of  a–forestated cases by filing<\/p>\n
crimirialrii…:’%’3p:$\u00e9\u00e9:1– ‘mj;-14-7z3t}’:2’0’o5 to Criminal Appeal
\n I~appellate Judge reversed the
\njudgmelnt–,lof~ by recording a finding that notice<\/p>\n
ca’\u00a2.1se_d  the”‘coHm.plainant was not in compliance with the<\/p>\n
‘ section l38{b) of the Act and acquitted accused<\/p>\n
 v2l.V–V’gj~:fh;’elrefore, complainant is before this Court in<\/p>\n
aforpestateld appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Revision Petition l\\io.322\/2007 is \ufb01led by<\/p>\n
 accused No.2, against judgment of conviction for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under section 138 of the Act made in<\/p>\n
3’\\’-‘;_  ..\\. ,\/\\f.\u00ab,-Jiv. ”\n<\/p>\n
C.C.No.32014\/1999. Confirmed by I–appe11a.tt:HC0’i;2ttx in<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No. E 473\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
3. For the sake of c1ai’ity,AA\u00bbvappea..1’s”‘fiii\u00a7d,Fti\u00e9fore<\/p>\n
Court with corresponding case ‘\u00bb.nuifrib.8rs ‘–1;e1’o’re  ‘Court 2’<\/p>\n
and I-appellate Court and C._}_16q11F\u20ac13_.0}1Vth0!”b\u00a7i0i\u00a7  <\/p>\n
complaints were initiated are2v24t’aF1:m1_8ited2 \u00e9’u:_V:f0’1iowV8:.<\/p>\n
.    Ch.N0.l88542
\n. _ V  ‘.V__cc-.3_2_01~8\/_99   Rs.1.39,368\/~<\/p>\n
CrI’A’N\u00b0f2″7U4 ~ 22 C0iC?f2(t1)0-8 5C12001\\;Od::1:c?\/ 05 (336998<\/p>\n
 “‘3O9fv’,’  ‘ _ “;Fi11e _  20.12.2008 Ceriturion<\/p>\n
‘ _V aRs.~2_.28,__400\/A Bank Ltd..\n<\/p>\n
      Barigaiore
\n ~ = FCC 32.015\/99 Ch No 188537
\nCr1.A.I~L’.().2’7 1\/  .22′ %\u00a79’1:%O5 C’;gb%\u00b0&:’::’;’\/ Rs.1\/$2.360\/A\n<\/p>\n
– 2007.  ‘ .’ . dated
\n=  Fine 20.12.2006
\n.________Rs|2!36’64O\/_ . 27.11.1998
\nV  cc 32017\/99
\n    c..1;11.1×11..;m, 22 333305 C;gg;;;g;+;g\/ \u00a72.’?%\u00a7.8\ufb01\u00a7iT
\n  200072.-‘” ‘ .’ ‘2 dated
\n\u00ab \u00ab   Fine 20.12.2006<\/p>\n
. . V RS_2!34_6O0\/_ 02.12.1998
\nA V CC \/99 CrA N0 1477\/ Ch’N”‘188522
\n*CrI;A.I\\\u00a50.273\/ 22 0902005 2:065 (‘hfed Rs.1,42.l95\/-<\/p>\n
‘ 2007 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ dated
\nFine 20.12.2006<\/p>\n
RS_2!40_9IO\/_ %8.II.I998
\ncc 82082 99 . .\n<\/p>\n
dated \/ CIA N0 1480\/ Ch’NO’188538
\nCrE.A.i\\i0.274\/ 22 O9 2005 2’0b5 dated  E 40.309\/A<\/p>\n
200′? ‘ .’ . dEH.Cd
\nFine 20.12.2006 _
\nRS’2’_38_OOO\/_ 30.11.1998<\/p>\n
in Crjfninal Revision Petition N0322\/2007.<\/p>\n
CC 32061\/99 ~~f’5h.N0:’V288’535
\n6 Cr1\u00bbAg%g75\/ 22_%’SiZ%o5 C%’33?a1f:Z\u00a7’e
\nFine 20.I2.2O.(V)'(‘3  ‘Z6141 0199-8
\nRs: ‘?!”)R’A.(‘1r”|\/- ‘     ” ‘
\nCC 32\u00b050\/99  ” ..  -1’ C:n.No.’1’885’33
\nCr1ANO 276\/ dam .CY’A~~N9e*1’*’78\/-. “R331 21.1 146\/-
\n7 ‘ L200’? 22.09.2005 ‘ 2005′ dated’ _ ‘
\nFine. ’20.I_2.20050.’.’_ 2 ‘ 19  1’g_,8’y
\n121424141111\/– ‘- 1   “‘-._V_’\n<\/p>\n
– -{  , . .\n<\/p>\n
8 C”1’A’N\u00b0’277\/ 22.09.2005.  2-005 daLed-_ 0RS’1’40’7E’0\/”
\n2007  . .4′ ‘A ‘  , ” ‘ dated
\n. ~~..If’1ne’\u00ab ‘- _4.20.’1.2.2O0b 21 11 1998
\nRs;–2.138.O~_O0\/%{_–‘v  ‘ ‘
\nCC \/99 : Ci~’;A;N<\u00a7.}'1–z182\/ Ch'N\u00b0'188\u00a740
\n9 C\ufb02"A;\u00a7j\u00b0'278'\/V 22}0'9'.2005 2005_d'at,ed RS'62'89b\/"\n<\/p>\n
07.. ~- 1 ., .1 . ~ .. ,. _ dated
\n  _ Else QQ,_.l2.2006 07 121998
\n%_  _. Rg;;,00,480.\/\u00bb”- ‘ ‘
\n    ” Ch.N0.l88E335
\n‘V   “ee_321n.4\/99  Rs.1,39.267\/~
\nC_rLRP.N.o.32:’;,__ _  ‘d__ai.ed  ~Cr.A.N0.1473\/ dated
\n10  \/’2007 ‘ 22.09.2005 2005 dated 25.11.1998
\n* .   . F:.n_c\u00ab 20.12.2006 Centurion
\n” Rs,2’;*3.6.’6__40\/~ Bar1kLtd..\n<\/p>\n
 * 2′  ” Bangalore\n<\/p>\n
4.. ‘  “have he\u00e9ird Sri Mahesh, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
  M.Sh1vappa, learned counsel for accused 1<\/p>\n
 and M.Pa1aniyappan, learned counsel for petitioners<\/p>\n
As per averments of complaims, complainant is a<\/p>\n
 private company iimited and it was manufacturing steel.<\/p>\n
r\\: ,,\u00a3v\u00bb\ufb01\/W’*Q* ‘<\/p>\n
Accused No.1 nameiy M\/s.Mod1′ a partnership”con’ce’rn’,’~..was<\/p>\n
purchasing steei from the complainant. <\/p>\n
between 03.11.1998 and 1:7;’11–..199–‘8,  ;i1e.1′,: <\/p>\n
represented by its partners accusedi\ufb01i
\nseveral items of steel  conip1ai’n.an’t:  invoices
\ndated 03.11.1998, ,.o5.11,1e99f8,”07111.1998,,..71o.11.1998,<\/p>\n
14.11.1998 and 17.”’11”.c1.9’98f\u00a7–.fer of Rs.1,42,195\/-,<\/p>\n
Rs.1,4O,76O\/_=;’Rs.1,:4″1V;5’f12,\/fi,-Rs_.x1#3919197\/–, Rs.1\/12,360\/~,<\/p>\n
Rs. 1 ,4o,3.o9(–,iii:j:1\u00a7e. Iv,9:9_1’368\/.9, :Rs.119’9,115\/–, Rs.1,-41,146\/–<\/p>\n
and  order to discharge invoices
\narnovuntif, _ ched;ues.9VWe:fe-. _\ufb011i’.aW’1’1 on the account of accused
\nNo.1– fii*r1–1  lids-.part1’ne19s namely K.M.Mustaq [accused No.2]<\/p>\n
 11.1.\/Iv1Ka1eem1_11.1.a (accused No.3). The fo\ufb02owing cheques<\/p>\n
‘ V.V9’wCrevVissued'” favouring the comp1ainant:–<\/p>\n
 H V”‘v.’fC’h’eques for Rs.1,42,195\/– dated 18.11.1998
\nV””hea1″ing cheque No.188522, Rs.1,40,760\/– dated
\n21.1 1.1998 bearing cheque No. 188530,
\nRs.],41,146\/– dated 19.11.1998, cheque
\nNo.188533, Rs.1.41,582\/~ dated 23.11.1998,<\/p>\n
cheque No.188535, Rs. 1 ,39,267\/_.~\u00a7_V ‘   1.
\n25.11.1998, cheque No.188534, 1\u00a7s1’i’,—4.2′,?38o\/t-
\ndated 27.11.1998, cheque  1\u00a71cj;i1:v8_853–:?;
\nRs.l,40,309\/- dated “\u00bb3o.:11″1,.1’998_,
\nNo. 188538, Rs.1,38; 11 5 .dated 92’t;;12,1.99_}3,
\ncheque No.188541}”‘JT”*Rs.l,.39,$6’8\/=\u00bb lj\u00e9dated
\n05.12.1998, cheque 1\u00a7:c,.1f885z12 and Rs\u00ab..62Q\u00a7896\/~
\ndated 07. 12.  chequeviNo.\u00a7:}viS8540.”<\/p>\n
6. On p.1’e.sentati{9’n   were dishonoured.<\/p>\n
\n notice to accused\nNo.1,.    dpaerthers, accused 2 & 3 on\n\"days from the date of dishonour of\n<\/pre>\n
cheques’;jfhev  “wite.t’e’ served on accused, however there<\/p>\n
was no re’s”pon_se_ from them. Therefore, aforestated<\/p>\n
 “c.onipiaint.s”‘~-were initiated by the compiainant (appellant<\/p>\n
7. ” _B1efore the trial Court, accused No.2 was examined as<\/p>\n
A   Accused No.2 did not dispute signatures of accused 2<\/p>\n
 3 on the cheques. Accused No.2 also did not dispute<\/p>\n
issuance of aforestated cheques in favour of the<\/p>\n
complainant, however, he had contended that cheiq-u:es_ were<\/p>\n
not issued to discharge legally recoverable <\/p>\n
on the other hand, all the ten cheques_were:~i.ss’uedA tQrtl1\u20acll”‘.<\/p>\n
complainant as advance amou:nt:..foriv   to”
\naccused No.1 — firm. The cornplaiiialnt
\nHowever, complainant presented _chec;u–e_s:lt’o initiate these
\nfalse and frivolous accused. In other
\nwords, defence of  were not<\/p>\n
supported Eby”~:cVons1rle1*at-ionI ~:.was,ilalso contended that<\/p>\n
consiolidateci,    complainant is not in
\naccordancel witirtzhe’vprovisions of section 138(b) of the Act.
\nThe com”pl.ai’11an’t should have issued separate notices in<\/p>\n
 of dishono-Jr of each cheque to have a distinctive<\/p>\n
 c’aups’e._ action to initiate separate complaints. The<\/p>\n
9′ .co’1nplain”1:’j’vi’eas initiated by one V.R.Krishnamurthy, who is<\/p>\n
statedatov be the Manager and Power of Attorney holder of<\/p>\n
2  9′ il\\\/i’\/ps.Vijaya Steel Limited, on the basis of a Special Power of<\/p>\n
u”\u00a7}ltt.o1’ncy executed on 01.03.1999, stated to have been<\/p>\n
H executed by the Director of M\/s.Vijaya Steels Limited. The<\/p>\n
N’ ‘h_hL <\/p>\n
said company passed a resolution on 28.'”l-2.1999,
\nauthorising said V.R.Krishnamurthy to  ‘these<\/p>\n
complaints, almost after a period of 10 months <\/p>\n
of initiation of complaints. ‘:lf”n’uS’,”.co’mp_laiAn’vts gw’eTret”‘Vnoti’. it<\/p>\n
initiated by complainant and th’eV_pe_rson  had” –ini.tiated
\ncomplaint had not been au~t:h’or1sed.V’to__ in!tia1;excvoVrn’pla1ntstin<\/p>\n
accordance with law, .\n<\/p>\n
8. The complainant’  and produced<\/p>\n
‘docume.nts;”to”prove”that ‘axfor’esta–tedcheques were issued to<\/p>\n
discharge ui”ecov_erable~’debt. The contention of accused
\nthat cheques “were in advance for supply of steel is<\/p>\n
untenable. “‘lT1r_V1_eV’consolidated notice, giving particulars of<\/p>\n
” \u00ab_transactions with reference to each of the dishonoured<\/p>\n
*c_heques_.gV indicating the amount for which cheques were<\/p>\n
d\u00abrawri  also dates of dishonour of cheques and specific<\/p>\n
 up {demand to make good amount under the aforestated<\/p>\n
Vcheques was in compliance with the provisions of section<\/p>\n
 138(b) of the Act. The theory of defence that cheques were<\/p>\n
issued as advance for supply of n1aterial is untenable. In<\/p>\n
av.  my\/\u00ab~ \u00abQ\u00bb ‘<\/p>\n
4 ll<\/p>\n
fact, in respect of each transaction, complai11ant:liad-.raised
\ninvoices in favour of accused No.1 and thereafter
\ndelivered to accused No.l– t’irrr1::’I”‘;1e.lofj l
\nlegal notice dated 10.02.1999
\ntheory of defence that ciiejcfues lK?G]{‘6’  Alsi\ufb01jported
\nconsideration was ,.a. stibs-eduent\u00ab\u00bb..yAinyeritionto protract
\nproceedings, in orderato complainant. The
\ncheques     the account held
\nby acct1:sed=Accused No.2 in his
\n\u00abth_’aL”accused 2 & 3 were partners
\nof accusedl  iajrtdhcheqties were jointly drawn by<\/p>\n
accused\u00b02., &* 3 ‘in of the complainant. The defence has<\/p>\n
 case that~v…si.gned blank cheques were issued to<\/p>\n
‘ V. ‘ Lomplaina nt.–._<\/p>\n
 learned counsel for complainant by relying on<\/p>\n
the” documents produced by complainant would submit that<\/p>\n
 , lfjresumption available under section 139 of the Act was not<\/p>\n
 rebutted by accused. !”\\?~ 4- ‘i’-“~”5>\\ 1*-546%’<\/p>\n
— 12<\/p>\n
The learned trial Judge accepting the version of
\ncomplainant and rejecting the defence ve1’siorl;’wLconvicted<\/p>\n
accused as aforestated. Accused No.3,  had v’..\u00bb:’S’$’l’,1l’.’lJt?.,I”\u20ac”.j<\/p>\n
conviction as a partner of accused No.”l”\u00a2~–.u’_fi1’n’1 V4d.id–Vr1ot_ <\/p>\n
challenge the judgment of conviction.” No.2 2<\/span><\/p>\n
namely K.lV\u00a3.Mustaq preferred.uafores-tated appeals,  <\/p>\n
9. The learned Judge oI’&.I>’ap.p:ellate. Court’,”cohcu1’1’ed with
\nthe \ufb01ndings of trial :th”a.:’t  were drawn and
\nissued by accused  to discharge<\/p>\n
legally ‘pre’sumption available under section
\n139 of  Act’ \u00bb~l:J;”O@*.44IV’\u20acbult\u20acCl by accused to hold the<\/p>\n
co,giti’a.:. defe1″1ceve1’sion that cheques were issued in advance<\/p>\n
   steel and the complainant did not supply steel is<\/p>\n
 fi*ivolmAjs..vV’l’  complainant had proved that cheques were<\/p>\n
is’sued_v’to-td’ischa1’ge legally recoverable debt.<\/p>\n
The learned Judge of I–appellate Court accepted<\/p>\n
defence contention that the complainant should have<\/p>\n
–”issued separate notices to have a distinct cause of action in<\/p>\n
J\\7\\ “M 0\\ “~*<7-Fe;-~=<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
respect of each dishonoured cheque. ‘1″‘herefore,.le–gal notice<\/p>\n
dated 10.02.1999 was defective and it was not\u00e9pin lalcciordance<\/p>\n
with the provisions of section I38[b} of the  <\/p>\n
Judge of l–appellate Court has””he1\u00a2d ‘l_unlelsAsl:v ‘-tl.ieH=fivef’ <\/p>\n
ingredients to constitute an
\nsection 138 of the Act ‘are’~v..pro\\}e’dt__byVVlltvliielt.icomplainant.
\naccused cannot be held  of an C oifenc\ufb01i punishable<\/p>\n
under section 138 of”t–he.Ac.t. antl acquitted accused.<\/p>\n
10. In\u00abCrin\ufb01inalizReyision.1$et1″t1on:No.322\/2007, the trial<\/p>\n
Court. andlv  have recorded concurrent
\nfindings\u00e9lin favour’ ofixtlontplainant. Both the Courts have<\/p>\n
ccfncurrently. that cheques were issued to discharge<\/p>\n
 rec’oye1″able debt. The notice issued is in accordance<\/p>\n
   provisions of section 13863} of the Act. Both the<\/p>\n
Courts’ have rejected defence version that cheques were<\/p>\n
 _ issued in advance for supply of steel on future dates and the
\nit  *co.n1plainant had failed to supply steel. There are concurrent<\/p>\n
 findings of trial Court and I-appellate Court that accused<\/p>\n
No.1. represented by accused 2 81 3 are guilty of n offence
\n6\\? I 5′ ”\n<\/p>\n
I\\ ‘1.\n<\/p>\n
i
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
 r.’<\/p>\n
~ 14<\/p>\n
punishable under section 138 of the Act. As already\ufb02atated,<\/p>\n
accused No.3 namely K.M.Kaleemulla, one  of<\/p>\n
accused No.1 M firm has not challenged the of trial’ j <\/p>\n
Court. Accused No.1 —\n<\/p>\n
K.M.Mustaq [accused  preferrecglll\u00a7}Arliininail:Appeall
\nNo.14:\/3\/2005. As ,….alread.y-ll:”ysta’teAd, .lll\u00a5a’ppelllate Court,
\nconcurring with thell4lilri\u00a7j.ingg’l’:-Q1′ dismissed the
\nappeal. Therefore,   by its partner<\/p>\n
accused:_.No:2  Crirninal Revision Petition<\/p>\n
NO.322l]’2QLC’f7 al\u00a7ainslt~conc’ur’rent findings of trial Court and
\nIwaplpelllate ‘C_C)l1l,1~l1:~.f[.’\/c.j~i1el’e.olr1Vt_entions raised in revision petition
\nby parties are  with the contentions raised by<\/p>\n
Vparties in theAse\u00abc.ri_minal appeals.<\/p>\n
V  lll”l._  l_’i3efore adverting to submission of learned counsel<\/p>\n
 parties regarding maintainability of complaints,<\/p>\n
teriability of legal notice and non–existence of legally<\/p>\n
  recoverable debt. it would be useful to refer to the evidence<\/p>\n
 adduced by both parties before the trial Court.<\/p>\n
,. 15 _.\n<\/p>\n
12. On behalf of the complainant, the Manager and
\nSpecial Power of Attorney Holder namely <\/p>\n
was examined as PW1. PW1 has given oral .\u00a2’v–:denjce”1~\u00bbe1aung<\/p>\n
to transactions which culminatedwin. 4init.iatio’n–Vof complVaints~ <\/p>\n
as aforestated. PW1 has given    of it<\/p>\n
steel to accused No.1 — andA’issua_nlceA oI””ehe*ques <\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
The cross~eXamin.-ationvPWZI’ vi>s~.ldi.rected towards his<\/p>\n
locus\u00abstand.i\u00ab’tojinitlate  consolidated legal<\/p>\n
notice issi ied” bvu the lcoinplairiant.<\/p>\n
13._ l\u00b0AcC’L1sed lV’–o.2=~>’l{.l\\\/E.Mustaq examined for himself as<\/p>\n
13?’.\/’lg’, onlj}Vl’o11——–nis behalf but also on behalf of accused 1<\/p>\n
‘  DW1 has not disputed issuance of aforestated<\/p>\n
” .c’hlequesv’.”f’j’ has speci\ufb01cally deposed that aforestated<\/p>\n
Che-ques [cheques mentioned supra) were drawn by accused<\/p>\n
2    as partners of accused No.1 – M\/s.E\\\/lodi. DWI has<\/p>\n
 deposed; complainant had assured to supply certain steel<\/p>\n
l material; in good faith, accused 2 & 3 as partners” of accused<\/p>\n
— 16<\/p>\n
No.1– firm had issued aforestated cheques and delivered the<\/p>\n
same to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
14. In order to appreciate the <\/p>\n
necessary to state that the [pcorr1_pla;inapnt_has*prod.ucedl’—-_<\/p>\n
invoice copies, corresponding :\u00a2’—-\u00a2\u00a7ch ofV.the..
\ncheques. The invoices were  much. before foilieoues were
\nissued. If the compIa’i~nant:’Alhladvvtprepsented lchedvues, without
\nsupplying the materiah  have definitely<\/p>\n
instructed \u00a7tl*mirrVV1’barll\\v~<\u00a31-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-17<\/p>\n
there can be no doubt that there is an initial
\npresumption which favours the con1plainantf<\/p>\n
S. 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse
\nclause that has been included in  l ~
\nthe legislative objective of  the  it
\ncredibility of negotiable ziinstrunient-is.– .1:  _
\nSection 138 of the Act spec’i.fie’sA_la(strong crimiliiai
\nremedy in relation to the disnonour A l
\nthe rebuttable presurnlptiioii under S:ee’tionlV3139 is<\/p>\n
a device to prevent undlue\ufb02 in thecourse of
\nlitigation. Hovvever,  remembered that
\nthe off6,T~1_Ce 1T13.Cle.:..p1.1ni–5li\/ablll\u00e9LI\u00e9S7.:;.Sl:I38 can be<\/p>\n
 H  a regulatory offence since the<\/p>\n
 bouncinglfofla.pchet1’u_es is largely in nature of a<\/p>\n
impact is usually confined to<\/p>\n
–. the it ..,rivate parties involved in commercial<\/p>\n
;_..rtransacti.or1–s;~\u00ab”in such a scenario, the test of<\/p>\n
 proport_ionality should guide the construction<\/p>\n
A  interpretation of reverse onus Clauses and<\/p>\n
the\u00e9taccused\/defendant cannot be expected to<\/p>\n
discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In<\/p>\n
lithe absence of compelling justifications, reverse<\/p>\n
onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary
\nburden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping<\/p>\n
this in view, it is a settled position that when an<\/p>\n
JV  ~ .9\/\\.\u00ab–<\u00ab?f4\u00ab,<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
accused has to rebut. the presumption
\nSection 139, the standard of proof for   .
\nthat of ‘preponderance of  it
\nTherefore, if the accused; to  I’
\nprobable defence which c’reates’
\nthe existence of a Fegally eIifoli’ceabl_;ell’
\nliability, the prosecutiofn.:.c’a_n fail.r_  accused
\ncan rely on the matte’1″ia_ls ll’su_b;nitte’ciA  the
\ncomplainant inl’o1’derl’to  defence and<\/p>\n
it is conyc_eivable–that. in. ‘the accused
\n;nay;noi”y;.pVpr1eed1._to add’ucel–:_levi.dence of his\/her
\no\\A\u00a5IiL’;lfl.\\”.,V;i’~’7’l’ if A  it it<\/p>\n
 the  accused have not disputed that
\nthey had.d1’awn__chet1uels in favour of the complainant and<\/p>\n
 issu’ed..__c_h.eques. Therefore, presumption available<\/p>\n
‘  139 of the Act would arise that cheques were<\/p>\n
discharge legally recoverable debt. In the<\/p>\n
cilreullinstance, burden sh.ifts upon accused to rebut such<\/p>\n
if ‘presumption. The accused have not adduced any evidence to<\/p>\n
 ‘rebut such presumption. On the other hand, I” find nature of<\/p>\n
defence raised by accused is totally untenable. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
x,. 1’–\\ ~~\u00a2.Q.s\\.\n<\/p>\n
 1.9<\/p>\n
trial Court and I–appellate Court have rightly held that
\ncheques were issued by accused 2 8: 3 as–‘_”partne.rs of
\naccused No.1 in favour of the complainant <\/p>\n
legally recoverable debt.\n<\/p>\n
16. The accused haVe_ qzi.\u00a7:’se\u00a7n\u00a7d loctist
\nV.R.Krishnamurthy. to initia\u00abte”a.nd vprosecuhte \u00abcomplaints as
\nthe Manager and   lvvlholder of the
\ncomplainant —  The complainant<\/p>\n
has produced! power Qt iattoyrney. by executed by one of the<\/p>\n
Directors  Steels Limited, constituting Sri
\nV.R.Kri’sh11amurthy .–  it power of attorney to initiate<\/p>\n
pr;oceedings”‘andVprosecute proceedings on 01.03.1999. This<\/p>\n
 \u00abact  “ratified by M\/s.Vijaya Steels Limited by its<\/p>\n
   28.l2.1999. Therefore, E hold initiation of<\/p>\n
 A and prosecution of complaints by<\/p>\n
 AA Riiifishnamurthy is valid in law and on facts.<\/p>\n
  The learned Judge of I–appe11ate Court has<\/p>\n
H accepted the contention of defence that the complainant<\/p>\n
We Wc;–a…z..\n<\/p>\n
~ 20<\/p>\n
should have issued separate notices in respectof each
\ndishonour of cheques and co–related transacti.:3~ns-;_:nnless
\nsuch a notice is issued, cause of action
\ninitiate a complaint in terms of section ]{1:2″o’f:  ll<\/p>\n
18. The learned counsel
\njudgment of the Supremelitiourt, re.po1ftecll_i;1  8
\n300 (in the case of ;–‘.I{x.R.Ind’ira.’li’:v.llDzfiG.Adir1arag;rana] would
\nsubmit that notice issued  cheques should
\ncontain spe.c1_\ufb01;\u00a2    of the sum covered<\/p>\n
by  .che’q.i1e_Vl’d.is’honQured, mere fact that it was a
\nconsolidated ln’oti’cel;  that further demands in addition<\/p>\n
to; ti1ei.statu’tr)i’il}? envisaged demand were also found to have<\/p>\n
 ” A V  not invalidate the same.\n<\/p>\n
 Iv. V l ‘lvevyffhaevllearned Counsel for accused would submit. the<\/p>\n
notice in question is distinguishable as there was no specific<\/p>\n
 A demand made for payment of amount covered under each<\/p>\n
,3<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
 cheque. I”\\.J_c:\/’ 1 f?””‘\/*–i r-‘ ‘<\/p>\n
-22<\/p>\n
charges were also made, did not
\nnotice. In a given case if the consolidated’lnloltiggf  .
\nis found to provide Sufficient.~iI1Af\u00a7)’1’V1’l’1\ufb01’tiO_I1 it
\nenvisaged by the statutorymnrovisiion
\nwas a specific demand
\nsum covered by the’llcl1equel ‘dislionoulre.d~,viumere V
\nfact hat it was a consolllidated notioelfaxlid\/loir that
\nfurther demands in tihelstatutorily
\nenvisaged demand~*.yerel’;.ai7sol’ to have been
\nmade may “Qt H   Same. This
\nposition not   \u00abby the learned<\/p>\n
coiinslely for3’the”resp~ond._ent. ._I’~Iowever, according<\/p>\n
to ‘their resf\u00e9ondent, the”I’1’otice in question is not<\/p>\n
 separalol\u00e9-._in._that'”‘w’ay and that there was no<\/p>\n
specific for payment of the<\/p>\n
amlou_ntV..c’ove’red’: by the cheque. We have<\/p>\n
 5ijlerusedl”th–e_.cont.ents of the notice. Significantly.<\/p>\n
_ A Vnotaonly the cheque amounts were different from<\/p>\n
  alleged loan amounts but the demand was<\/p>\n
 not of the cheque amounts but only the<\/p>\n
ltloan amount as though it is a demand for the<\/p>\n
 loan amount and not the demand for payment of<\/p>\n
the cheque amount, nor could it be said that it:
\nwas a demand for payment of the cheque<\/p>\n
amount and in addition thereto made ‘further<\/p>\n
-mt.\n<\/p>\n
 23<\/span><\/p>\n
demands as well. What is necessary
\nof a demand for the amount covered.\n<\/p>\n
bounced cheque which is conspicv_o’usly~..absent<\/p>\n
in the notice issued in
\nquestion is imperfect in this
\nhad any further or addiitionalcllairns  d<\/p>\n
it did not specifically  any d–eniand:for the
\npayment of the  amount, ‘lithe non-\n<\/p>\n
compliance  only being the
\nincriminating ci–1\u00b0curr1stan.cel  exposes the
\ndrawer ll tli-\u00abeing ”  proceed ed.’ \u00abagainst under<\/p>\n
   V<\/p>\n
 In  pon_T”h.a11d.l, the complainant had issued<\/p>\n
notice =..po11.  accused No.l–M\/s.Modi la<\/p>\n
p\u00e9artn-ership”~ firm), V” represented by its partners namely<\/p>\n
 ” \u00ab    No.2l–Hl(.M.I\\\/Iustaq and accused No.3-<\/p>\n
 ‘  who had drawn cheques as partners of<\/p>\n
accused.V.3No.1–firm in favour of i.he complainant. In<\/p>\n
 AA [paragraph 1 of the notice, there is reference to invoices and<\/p>\n
” –dan.Les and amount for which such invoices were raised by the<\/p>\n
 complainant in the name of accused No.1. In paragraph 2 of<\/p>\n
legal notice, there is reference i.o cheque numbers and<\/p>\n
N. 5  –  “\\\u00ab\\,\u00e9.’.E\/ix’<\/p>\n
 24<\/span><\/p>\n
amount for which cheques were drawn and date on which
\ncheques were drawn. In paragraph 2 of the legal 4no’tice.JV_there<\/p>\n
is reference to dates on which aforestated\u00a7'”cheq:ue_si.-were<\/p>\n
dishonoured for want of funds. In paragra;ih’~3  the <\/p>\n
notice, accused are made know”n_of the “c.onsequ.e11ces-‘ of<\/p>\n
dishonour of cheques andfihey havtellbeen  rd’; comtjly
\nwith the demand made in llthellllegal IVitZ\\ti'(VV:’e;V’:\\?\\71’\ufb02:t;’\u00a71i11 15 days
\nfrom the date of receipt  who has<\/p>\n
been examined as DW1  notbvdenied.:’V;fe_c.eipt of legal notice.<\/p>\n
The:i*eiore;’.:.the “\u00e9tV)VVI”1’l’gl’11..V.:S.. of ddtice dated 10.02.1999 would
\nmeetstatutory  of section 138[b} of the Act.<\/p>\n
 ”  learned Judge of l–appellate Court having<\/p>\n
  the contention of defence while dealing with<\/p>\n
V’ Apoeal 910.1473\/2005 dated 20.12.2006 in<\/p>\n
A(P’.”\u00ab.1″11’I}l_i”l’c’._li.:!~” Appeal l\\To.1474\/2005 to Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
 x No. \/2005 filed against judgment made in<\/p>\n
uh.'”C._’C.i\\Io.320.14\/1999, on the same day has accepted the<\/p>\n
 defence version that there should have been separate notices<\/p>\n
in respect of each dishonoured cheques a ._ cowrelated<\/p>\n
I\\’\u00a7V i  [7->x_.x_~,\u00a3\u20ac…’<\/p>\n
— 25<\/p>\n
transactions to set. aside the judgment recorded l)j\\I.__'[l’1\u20ac trial<\/p>\n
Court. in my considered opinion, the approach learned<\/p>\n
Judge of I–appellate Court is erroneousf:’Therefoi’e1″‘–atlie<\/p>\n
impugned judgments made… .__in   <\/p>\n
No.14’74\/2005 to Criminal Appeals~l\\io:i1482l\/2&005=.f\u00e9lated <\/p>\n
20.12.2006 cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
22. In View of theV_disculssion  supra and in View of
\nconcurrent \ufb01ndings  trial Court and I-<\/p>\n
appellate  judlgrngent impL1jgnedlpj’in Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
Peti’tion_ N ‘ not call for interference.<\/p>\n
23._ ‘in the r’esu._1t,l’i”lpass the folIoWing:–<\/p>\n
A   ….. .. 9 ORDER<\/p>\n
 Appeal N0s.270\/2007 to 278\/2007′ are<\/p>\n
.’.acceptedfj_ judgments made by the Lappellate Court in<\/p>\n
Crixninall Appeal Nos.1474\/2005 to Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
2  ‘No,14H82\/20005 are set aside. The judgments made in<\/p>\n
 c.”c.No.32015\/1999 to C.C.No.320l8\/1999 and<\/p>\n
” C.C.No.32060\/l999 to C.C.No.32064\/1999 restored.<\/p>\n
3″\\%.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00abx. V\u00bb .   ~<\/p>\n
 25<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal Revision Petition N0.322\/2007 <\/p>\n
judgment made by the trial Coiirt in
\nand judgment made by Lappeliegte  \u00e9\ufb01pinieai  ”
\nNo.14″\/’3\/2005 are confirm.ec1,_.\n<\/p>\n
SNN<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 Author: N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DEcEM13EI\u00e9l:’2-oIj1.o”‘I. V BEFORE H V l . THE HONBLE MR.JUS’I”\u00a7CFL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.27o\/2067 Cl{‘ll\\\/llI’-I.AL Nos.271\/2007 TO 278 as: o”RI,.R.P’.I\\Io’;”a22′;’2:oo7 ‘ CRL.A.Nos.270 TO 278\/2007— _ BETWEEN: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3788,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010"},"wordCount":3788,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010","name":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-12T10:13:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vijaya-steel-ltd-vs-ms-modi-on-8-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Vijaya Steel Ltd vs M\/S Modi on 8 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}