FORTIS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions common question of law is involved, therefore, I dispose of the same by this common order.

(2.) These writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in various Revisions filed against the order of process passed by the learned Magistrate against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (who are accused Nos. 2 and 4). To set the facts correctly, in Writ Petition No. 1199 of 2004, arun H. Merchant - accused No. 4 is not made party and therefore he is not a party to the same.

(3.) After the process was issued, original accused Nos. 2 and 4, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein (except Writ Petition No. 1199 of 2004) , filed an Application for discharge alleging that at the time of issuance of the cheques, they had resigned from the Company as Directors. The accused No. 2 allegedly resigned with effect from 31. 10. 1998 and accused No. 4 (respondent No. 3) - Arun H. Merchant had resigned with effect from 29. 7. 1999. They have produced the Form No. 32 along with their resignation.