Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 438/2011
CADBURY INDIA LTD Appellant
Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate with Mr. Varun singh and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Advocates.
CRL.L.P. 438/2011
CADBURY INDIA LTD Appellant
Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate with Mr. Varun singh and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Advocates.
VERSUS
VARSHA TRADING CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Chandiwal, Advocate.
Through: Mr. R.K. Chandiwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
31.08.2012 CrLM.A. 10877/2011 (condonationVin Crl.L.P. 438/2011
Keeping in view the fact that appellant had earlier filed a revision petition whichhad been dismissed with liberty to file the present appeal, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Crl.L.P. 438/2011 Keeping in view the fact that appellant's criminal complaint has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, the leave to appeal is allowed.
31.08.2012 CrLM.A. 10877/2011 (condonationVin Crl.L.P. 438/2011
Keeping in view the fact that appellant had earlier filed a revision petition whichhad been dismissed with liberty to file the present appeal, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Crl.L.P. 438/2011 Keeping in view the fact that appellant's criminal complaint has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, the leave to appeal is allowed.
CRL L P. 438/2011 page I of3.
2013:DHC:7506 CRL.A.
Registry is directed to number the appeal. With consent of the parties, present appeal is taken up for hearing.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25^'
August, 2009 whereby the appellant's complaint being CC No. 9977/1
(OldNo. 1175/1) has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
After hearing the parties at length, it transpires that the appellant had filed two complaints being CC No.710/05 as well as the present complaint being CC No! 9977/1 (old No. 1175/1) against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insti'uments Act, 1881.
During the period 2005 to 2007, both the complaints were taken up for hearing simultaneously. However, on 12*^'^ September, 2007 while
CC No. 710/05 was adjourned for complainant's evidence to 01®' May, 2008, the present complaint was adjourned in the miscellaneous hst for
11"^ May, 2008 which was a Sunday.
Since both the parties were under the impression that both the complaints are being taken up simultaneously for hearing, none had appeared before the trial Court in the present complaint till its dismissal on 25"" August, 2009.
CRLLP. 438/2011 page 2 of3.
It is pertinent to mention that though the trial Court had issued default notice to the appellant, but the same was never served.
Since a perusal ofthe order sheets ofthetrial Court record reveals that none had appeared for either of the parties before the trial Court between the year 2008 and 2009 and the appellant had not been served with default notice, this Court is of the view that appellant's complaint needs to be restored.
Consequently, present appeal is allowed and order dated 25"'
August, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magisti-ate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 9977/1 (Old No.1175/1) is set aside and the aforesaid complaint isrestored to its original number.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Additional Chief
Meti-opolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 17"" September,
2013:DHC:7506 CRL.A.
Registry is directed to number the appeal. With consent of the parties, present appeal is taken up for hearing.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25^'
August, 2009 whereby the appellant's complaint being CC No. 9977/1
(OldNo. 1175/1) has been dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
After hearing the parties at length, it transpires that the appellant had filed two complaints being CC No.710/05 as well as the present complaint being CC No! 9977/1 (old No. 1175/1) against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insti'uments Act, 1881.
During the period 2005 to 2007, both the complaints were taken up for hearing simultaneously. However, on 12*^'^ September, 2007 while
CC No. 710/05 was adjourned for complainant's evidence to 01®' May, 2008, the present complaint was adjourned in the miscellaneous hst for
11"^ May, 2008 which was a Sunday.
Since both the parties were under the impression that both the complaints are being taken up simultaneously for hearing, none had appeared before the trial Court in the present complaint till its dismissal on 25"" August, 2009.
CRLLP. 438/2011 page 2 of3.
It is pertinent to mention that though the trial Court had issued default notice to the appellant, but the same was never served.
Since a perusal ofthe order sheets ofthetrial Court record reveals that none had appeared for either of the parties before the trial Court between the year 2008 and 2009 and the appellant had not been served with default notice, this Court is of the view that appellant's complaint needs to be restored.
Consequently, present appeal is allowed and order dated 25"'
August, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magisti-ate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 9977/1 (Old No.1175/1) is set aside and the aforesaid complaint isrestored to its original number.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Additional Chief
Meti-opolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 17"" September,
ORDER
2012. TheAdditional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate is directed to mark the criminal complaintto the concerned court. Withthe aforesaid observations, present appeal stands allowed. L MANMO-H-ANT^f AUGUST 31, 2012 js CRLLP. 438/2011 P"Se of[3].