Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4434 (MAD)

Dinesh Dalmia v. The Assistant Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu Chennai

2011-11-08

A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

body2011
Judgment : The petitioner has come forward with these petitions to set aside the orders passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (EO-I) Egmore in batch of cases on 08.04.2011. 2. The counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the Calcutta High Court in the order dated 12.01.2011 in A.S.T No.906 of 2010 in C.R.M.No.16277 of 2010 restrained the petitioner from leaving Kolkatta and therefore the petitioner filed the petition under section 317 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal appearance. The trial court, without considering the bonafide request made by the petitioner, dismissed the petition. 3. I find force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that by virtue of the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.S.T.No.906 of 2010 in C.R.M. No.16277 of 2010 the petitioner was restrained from leaving Kolkatta and therefore, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C to dispense with his personal appearance. Under those circumstances, the trial Court is directed to peruse the original copy of the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Calcutta High Court on production of the same by the counsel for the petitioner and if the trial court is satisfied that the petitioner was restrained from leaving Calcutta, by any judicial order passed by the Calcutta High Court, the court below shall consider the petition filed for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner and in such event, the petitioner shall be permitted to represent the case through his counsel. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the certified copy of the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.S.T. No.906 of 2010 in C.R.M. No.16277 of 2010 before the trial court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the order dated 08.04.2011 passed in CC Nos.30, 31, 203, 271 to 273 of 2004 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (EO-I) Egmore shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.