FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.514 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2062 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.515 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2063 OF 2009 (S.K. Daga & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.A. Oak i/by Mahesh Menon & Co. for applicants. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State Mr. Kishor Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 11th January,2011 PC :- Both the applications are filed for restoration of writ petitions, which were dismissed for want of prosecution on 30th November 2010. Heard the counsel. Perused the applications. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The writ petitions are restored to file. (Judge) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2062 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2063 OF 2009 (S.K. Daga & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.A. Oak i/by Mahesh Menon & Co. for petitioners.. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State Mr. Kishor Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 11th January,2011 PC :- By consent, the petitions are taken on board for hearing. Heard the counsel. Respondent no.2 has filed complaint under Section 138 read with 141 Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioenrs, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the complaint in respect of dishonour of cheque issued by original accused No.1- company by name M/s A.W. Figgis & Co. Ltd.. The petitioners herein filed an application before the trial Court claiming that the company has been wound up by an order passed by the Calcutta High Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and sought directions against the complainant for impleading the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta as a party to the complaint. . The trial Court found that the order produced by the applicants was not in respect of winding up of accused no.1- company, but it was in respect of some other company. Therefore, the trial Court rejected the application. There is no dispute that the order of liqudation, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, even today is the same order as produced before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is a mistake in the order as regards description of the company, that has been would up by the Calcutta High Court. Until the petitioners get the order corrected, there can be no application on behalf of the petitioners as made. In that circumstance, the petitions are dismissed. (Judge)