MEENA ASHOK VASWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shirodkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 Nobody was present for the petitioner when the matter was called out twice in the morning and now after recess. I heard Mr. Shirodkar. The petitioner has challenged issue of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, mainly on the ground that even though she was a Director of the respondent No.4 firm she was not actually participating in the business of the firm and was not a signatory of the cheques which were issued by the firm to the respondent No.2.

(2.) MR. Shirodkar, on the basis of a ruling of this Court reported in 1994 (3) Bom. C. R. 634 Rajan Kinnerkar Vs. Eric Cordeiro and Anr. , contended that whether the petitioner was a signatory or not or whether she was incharge of the company or not, was not a factor to be considered by the High Court in Writ petition. These facts should only be considered by the Magistrate who ordered issuance of process.