{"id":64758,"date":"2009-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-05T08:21:35","modified_gmt":"2016-11-05T02:51:35","slug":"ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Oka<\/div>\n
                                 ((-1-))\n\n\n\nmst\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3088 OF 2007\n\n      M\/s.Cotex                                              Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n        versus\n      State of Maharashtra & anr.                          Respondents\n\n\n      Mr.A.H.Ponda for appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n      Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for the State.\n\n\n                   CORAM          :   A.S.OKA, J.\n                   DATE           :   18th February 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n      JUDGEMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
      1.<\/p>\n
             I have heard detailed submissions made                        by<\/p>\n
      the     learned             counsel     appearing         for      the<\/p>\n
      applicant.       This is an application for grant of<\/p>\n
      special     leave          to prefer an appeal         under       sub<\/p>\n
      section     4        of     section    378   of   the      Code      of<\/p>\n
      Criminal Procedure, 1973.               The applicant is the<\/p>\n
      complainant          in a complaint filed under section<\/p>\n
      138    of   the Negotiable Instruments                 Act,       1881<\/p>\n
      (hereinafter          referred        to as “the said Act            of<\/p>\n
      1881”).         By        the   impugned order      the     learned<\/p>\n
      Magistrate       has acquitted the second respondent<\/p>\n
      (accused).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     It will be necessary to refer to the facts<\/p>\n
      of the case in brief.                According to the case of<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                ((-2-))<\/p>\n
    the     applicant,          the second respondent                       is     the<\/p>\n
    proprietor         of M\/s.M.M.Knits Wears.                         As per the<\/p>\n
    orders       placed        by the second             respondent,               the<\/p>\n
    applicant         sold and delivered cloth material to<\/p>\n
    the     second        respondent having total                        value       of<\/p>\n
    Rs.14,77,717\/-.                Four     cheques were issued                      by<\/p>\n
    the     second respondent for payment of the price<\/p>\n
    of    the        goods     sold.        The        said    cheques            were<\/p>\n
    dishonoured           and communication of dishonour was<\/p>\n
    received         by      the     applicant on             30th        December<\/p>\n
    2005.        A     notice of demand was issued on                             30th<\/p>\n
    December 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                               The notice was received and was<\/p>\n
    replied          by letter dated 13th January 2006.                              As<\/p>\n
    the     demand was not complied with, the                               present<\/p>\n
    complaint was filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    3.      A perusal of the impugned order passed                                   by<\/p>\n
    the     learned Magistrate shows that the prior to<\/p>\n
    the     dishonour of the aforesaid cheques on                                  the<\/p>\n
    basis       of     which        notice     was        issued          on      30th<\/p>\n
    December         2005, the said cheques were deposited<\/p>\n
    by    the applicant and were dishonoured.                                 On the<\/p>\n
    basis       of     the dishonoured cheques,                        earlier         a<\/p>\n
    communication            at Exhibit-22 was issued by                           the<\/p>\n
    applicant.            By       the      said        communication              the<\/p>\n
    second       respondent          was called upon to issue                          a<\/p>\n
    single           demand         draft         in          the        sum         of<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                             ((-3-))<\/p>\n
    Rs.14,77,717=50              ps.      which       is        the         amount<\/p>\n
    payable        under     the       four    cheques.               The     said<\/p>\n
    communication at Exhibit-22 was made by E-mail.<\/p>\n
    The      learned         Judge       held        that          the        said<\/p>\n
    communication           at     Exhibit-22 was a                notice        of<\/p>\n
    demand as contemplated by clause (b) of proviso<\/p>\n
    to     Section       138 of the said Act of 1988.                          The<\/p>\n
    said communication at Exhibit P-22 is dated 9th<\/p>\n
    November        2000.        The learned Judge relied                     upon<\/p>\n
    the     decision of the Apex Court in the case                               of<\/p>\n
    Krishna        Exports       and    others            Vs.         Raju     Das<\/p>\n
    ([2006]1-SCC<\/p>\n
                           [Cri]-350)         and     held           that      the<\/p>\n
    complaint        based       on the second            dishonour            and<\/p>\n
    second     demand made on the basis of the                            second<\/p>\n
    dishonour cannot be entertained.                       Therefore, he<\/p>\n
    has passed an order of acquittal.<\/p>\n
    4.      The     learned        counsel      for        the        applicant<\/p>\n
    submitted        that        the Apex Court in the case                      of<\/p>\n
    Krishna         Exports        (supra)          has     followed           its<\/p>\n
    earlier        decision       in    the case           of      Sadanandan<\/p>\n
    Bhadran        Vs.      Madhavan Sunil            Kumar           (1998-SCC<\/p>\n
    [Cri]-1471).           He submitted that the decision in<\/p>\n
    the     case     of Sadanandan (supra)                 is        delivered<\/p>\n
    28th     August 1998.           He invited my attention                      to<\/p>\n
    the proviso to clause (b) of section 142 of the<\/p>\n
    said Act of 1881 inserted by amending Act No.55<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                   ((-4-))<\/p>\n
    of     2002 which was brought into force from                            6th<\/p>\n
    February           2003.         He pointed out that prior                 to<\/p>\n
    the     said        amendment,            the Court did        not      have<\/p>\n
    power     to        extend          the     period   of      limitation<\/p>\n
    provided           in        clause (b) of section 142 of                the<\/p>\n
    said     Act of 1881 and by virtue of said proviso<\/p>\n
    which was brought in force with effect from 6th<\/p>\n
    February           2003,       now the Court has a             power       to<\/p>\n
    extend        the        period of limitation         provided             in<\/p>\n
    clause        (b)        of Section 142 of the said Act                    of<\/p>\n
    1881.         He submitted that the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
    case     of<\/p>\n
                       Sadanandan (supra) has held that                      the<\/p>\n
    complaint           filed after the second dishonour was<\/p>\n
    not     maintainable.               He submitted that the               said<\/p>\n
    view     is        taken only on the ground that if                      the<\/p>\n
    said     complaint was entertained, the period                             of<\/p>\n
    limitation           provided under section 142 will                       be<\/p>\n
    made otiose.             He submitted that now with effect<\/p>\n
    from     6th        February          2003,    the   Court        of     the<\/p>\n
    learned        magistrate is empowered to extend                         the<\/p>\n
    period        of        limitation and, therefore, the                   law<\/p>\n
    laid     down           by     the Apex Court in the            case       of<\/p>\n
    Sadanandan           (supra) will have no application to<\/p>\n
    the     complaints filed after 6th February                           2003.<\/p>\n
    He     submitted             that    in the     present        case      the<\/p>\n
    objection regarding bar of limitation could not<\/p>\n
    have     been entertained in view of the                        decision<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                   ((-5-))<\/p>\n
    of     Division          Bench        of this court in                  case       of<\/p>\n
    State         of     Maharashtra                vs.        Vasant        Shankar<\/p>\n
    Mhasane        and<\/a> another (1993-Cri.L.J.-1134).                               He,<\/p>\n
    therefore,          submitted that the complaint                           filed<\/p>\n
    by the applicant could not have been thrown out<\/p>\n
    by the Trial Court on the basis of the law laid<\/p>\n
    down     by        the        Apex      Court         in     the    case            of<\/p>\n
    Sadanandan (supra) and Krishna Exports (supra).<\/p>\n
    He     submitted          that the second deposit                       of     the<\/p>\n
    cheque        was        on     the instructions              of        the        2nd<\/p>\n
    accused.\n<\/p>\n
    5.       I         have              carefully             considered              the<\/p>\n
    submissions.              As       far     as     factual          aspect           is<\/p>\n
    concerned, there is no dispute that the cheques<\/p>\n
    subject            matter          of       the            complaint           were<\/p>\n
    dishonoured          earlier            and a demand was made                      by<\/p>\n
    the     applicant             on     9th        November        2000          by     a<\/p>\n
    communication             at Exhibit-P-22.                  It is also not<\/p>\n
    in     dispute        that the said demand is                       a     demand<\/p>\n
    within the meaning of clause (b) of section 138<\/p>\n
    of the said Act of 1881.                    There is no reference<\/p>\n
    to     the first dishonour and the said demand                                     in<\/p>\n
    the     complaint             and the complaint is                  based          on<\/p>\n
    subsequent          dishonour            of the same cheques                   and<\/p>\n
    notice        of demand issued on 30th December 2005.<\/p>\n
    The     complaint             has been filed on 24th                    January<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                               ((-6-))<\/p>\n
    2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    6.     On plain reading of section 138 of the said<\/p>\n
    Act     of     1881 the cause of action for filing                         a<\/p>\n
    complaint          arises when the drawer of the cheque<\/p>\n
    fails to make payment of the amount of money to<\/p>\n
    the payee or to the holder in due course of the<\/p>\n
    cheque within a period of fifteen days from the<\/p>\n
    date     of receipt of the notice of demand                         under<\/p>\n
    clause (b) of section 138.                 The cause of action<\/p>\n
    as     pleaded in the present complaint is on                          the<\/p>\n
    basis     of<\/p>\n
                       subsequent dishonour and                 notice       of<\/p>\n
    demand dated 30th December 2005.\n<\/p>\n
    7.      The submission of the learned counsel                          for<\/p>\n
    the      applicant           is    that        only    as     per      the<\/p>\n
    instructions            of     the accused the cheques                were<\/p>\n
    redeposited.            He submitted that on the basis of<\/p>\n
    the     first       demand        made    in     November       2005       a<\/p>\n
    complaint could have been filed on 24th January<\/p>\n
    2006     by extending the period of limitation                           by<\/p>\n
    exercising         the       power    under      the     proviso         to<\/p>\n
    clause       (b)        of section 142 of the said Act                   of<\/p>\n
    1881     which       was       brought     into       force     on     6th<\/p>\n
    February        2003.        His submission is that the law<\/p>\n
    laid     down       in the case of             Sadanandan       (supra)<\/p>\n
    will     now       be     no      longer       applicable       to     the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                        ((-7-))<\/p>\n
    complaints filed after 6th February 2005.<\/p>\n
    8.     It   will be necessary to refer to what            is<\/p>\n
    held   by    the   Apex   Court   in   the    case        of<\/p>\n
    Sadanandan    (supra).    Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the<\/p>\n
    said decision read thus :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “7. Besides the language of Sections 138
\n           and 142 which clearly postulates only one
\n           cause   of    action,    there are     other<\/p>\n
           formidable impediments which negate the
\n           concept of successive causes of action.
\n           One of them is that for dishonour of one<\/p>\n
           cheque, there can be only one offence and
\n           such offence is committed by the drawer
\n           immediately on his failure to make the
\n           payment   within fifteen      days of the<\/p>\n
           receipt   of    the    notice   served    in
\n           accordance with clause (b) of the proviso
\n           to Section 138. That necessarily means
\n           that for similar failure after service of
\n           fresh notice on subsequent dishonour, the
\n           drawer cannot be liable for any offence<\/p>\n
           nor can the first offence be treated as
\n           non est so as to give the payee a right<\/p>\n
           to file a complaint treating the second
\n           offence as the first one. At that stage,
\n           it will not be a question of waiver of
\n           the right of the payee to prosecute the
\n           drawer but of absolution of the drawer of<\/p>\n
           an   offence,    which     stands   already
\n           committed by him and which cannot be
\n           committed by him again.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                             again\n\n           8.    The    other  impediment   to   the\n<\/pre>\n
           acceptance of the concept of successive<\/p>\n
           causes of action is that it till make the
\n           period of limitation under clause (c) of
\n           Section 142 otiose, for, a payee who
\n           failed to file his complaint within one
\n           month and thereby forfeited his right to
\n           prosecute the drawer, can circumvent the
\n           above limitative clause by filing       a
\n           complaint on the basis      of a    fresh
\n           presentation    of the   cheque and its<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                               ((-8-))<\/p>\n
            dishonour.   Since in the interpretation
\n            of statutes, the court always presumes
\n            that the legislature inserted very part
\n            thereof for a purpose and the legislative
\n            intention is that every part should have<\/p>\n
            effect, the above conclusion cannot be
\n            drawn for that will make the provision
\n            for limiting the period of making the<\/p>\n
            complaint nugatory.” (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
    The submission of the counsel for the applicant<\/p>\n
    could have been accepted if the decision of the<\/p>\n
    Apex     Court was only on the ground incorporated<\/p>\n
    in paragraph 8 of the said decision.                        Paragraph<\/p>\n
    8 of the said decision records that the what is<\/p>\n
    mentioned<\/p>\n
    the
\n                       therein
\n                              ig    is the other impediment<\/p>\n
            way of entertaining such a complaint.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                            in<\/p>\n
                                                                          The<\/p>\n
    other        impediment was that when the Apex                     Court<\/p>\n
    decided        the       case   before     it,    there        was      no<\/p>\n
    provision          under     the    said    Act       of    1881      for<\/p>\n
    extending the period of limitation.                        Obviously,<\/p>\n
    to     the     complaints          filed after        6th     February<\/p>\n
    2005,        the     law as amended will apply                but     the<\/p>\n
    main     reason given by the Apex Court is not the<\/p>\n
    bar      of        limitation       but    it    is    the       reason<\/p>\n
    incorporated             in paragraph 7 thereof.             What has<\/p>\n
    been     held        by the Apex Court is that                sections<\/p>\n
    138     and        142    contemplate only        one       cause       of<\/p>\n
    action.        The Apex Court held that for dishonour<\/p>\n
    of one cheque there can be only one offence and<\/p>\n
    the     said        offence is committed by             the      drawer<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                              ((-9-))<\/p>\n
    immediately        on       his   failure to     make         payment<\/p>\n
    within fifteen days of the receipt of notice in<\/p>\n
    terms       of clause (b) of proviso to section 138.<\/p>\n
    The     Apex      Court      further      observed         that      for<\/p>\n
    similar        failure after service of fresh                   notice<\/p>\n
    on a subsequent dishonour, the drawer cannot be<\/p>\n
    liable      for     any      offence     nor    can      the      first<\/p>\n
    offence be treated as non est so as to give the<\/p>\n
    payee       a right to file a complaint treating the<\/p>\n
    second      offence         as    the first one.           The      Apex<\/p>\n
    Court       held that the question is not of                    waiver<\/p>\n
    of    the      right
\n                            ig  of the payee to      prosecute           the<\/p>\n
    drawer      but     of absolution of the drawer of                     an<\/p>\n
    offence        which stands already committed by                     him<\/p>\n
    and which cannot be committed by him again.                            In<\/p>\n
    paragraph 9 of the said decision the Apex Court<\/p>\n
    has     reiterated that once the complainant gives<\/p>\n
    notice      on     the      basis of first       dishonour,            he<\/p>\n
    forfeits         the said right for in case of failure<\/p>\n
    of    the      drawer       to pay the     money       within        the<\/p>\n
    stipulated        time       after the service           of     second<\/p>\n
    notice after second dishonour.<\/p>\n
    9.      In view of what is held by the Apex                       Court<\/p>\n
    in    paragraph         7    in    the   case    of      Sadanandan<\/p>\n
    (supra), merely because the statutory provision<\/p>\n
    empowering        the       Court to extend the period                 of<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>
\n                            ((-10-))<\/p>\n
    limitation        is    applicable   to     the      present<\/p>\n
    complaint,       it cannot be said that the decision<\/p>\n
    of the Apex Court will not apply.<\/p>\n
    10.     In   the circumstances, the learned              Judge<\/p>\n
    was    right in holding that the complaint               could<\/p>\n
    not    have been entertained.        Hence, no case           is<\/p>\n
    made    out for grant of special leave to              prefer<\/p>\n
    an appeal.       The application is rejected.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    11.     It   is made clear that       the    observations\n\n    made    in\n                       \n                 this order shall not be construed                as\n\n    any    finding     on the rights and liabilities              of\n                      \n    the parties.\n\n\n\n                                      (A.S.OKA, J.)\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:21:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 Bench: A.S. Oka ((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3088 OF 2007 M\/s.Cotex Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Mr.A.H.Ponda for appellant. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - 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-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-05T02:51:35+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=\"10 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-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T02:51:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1904,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T02:51:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - 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-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-05T02:51:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T02:51:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009"},"wordCount":1904,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009","name":"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T02:51:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-cotex-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Cotex vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 February, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/64758","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=64758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}