Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2840/2011 and CrLM.A.No.19196/2'011
AXIS BANK LTD Petitioner
Through : Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advs.
Through: None.
. AXIS BANK LTD. ••••• Petitioner
\r^-' • • Through: Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr. • • • Anuj Chauhan, Advs.
' •„ + •CRL.M.C. 2842/2011
AXIS BANK LTD. Petitioner
Through : Mi". Amit Tyagi and Mr. A-nuj Chauhan, Advs.
Through : None.
. + CRL.M.C. 2843/2011 2013:DHC:6635 Anuj Chauhan, Advs. .
Tlirough ; Mr. Amit Tyagi imd Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advs. •
Through; Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr.
Through : Mr. AmitTyagi and Mr.
Tlirough : Mr. AmitTyagi andMr.
•Anuj Chauhan, Advs.
Tlirough : Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr.
Anuj Chauhan, i^s.dvs.
Through : None.
AXIS BANK LTD. • Petitioner
Througli: Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr.
AXIS BANK LTD Petitioner
Through;: Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr.
, AXIS BANK LTD. Petitioner
AXIS BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner Tlu'ough : Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr.
AXIS BANK LTD. ' Petitioner
AXIS BANK LTD. •••••Petitioner
Throiigh : Mr. AmitTyagi and Mr.
Through; None.
Aniij Chauhan, Advs.
• AXIS BANKLTD. ' Petitioner
Tlirough : Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mi-.
'axis bank ltd. Petitioner
AXIS BANK LTD.
Through Petitioner Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr. Anuj Chauhan,Advs.
Through Mr. Amit Tyagi and Mr. Anuj Chauhan,Advs.
Respondent
Tln'ough: None.
Respondent
08.07.2013 CrL MC 2840/2011 L In February 2011, tlie petitioner Bank instituted 30 r? complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1,881 in respect of the dishonour of cheques issued by the borrowers who had.taken the loan from the Banlc. The complaints
• were listed on 26"' February, 2011 when the learned Magistrate
I fixed the complaints for recording of pre-summoning evidence on
5"^ April, 2011.
ORDER
2. On 5"' April, 2011, the petitioner sought time for presummoning evidence whereupon the learned Magistrate fixed the cases for 3'^' May, 2011 and directed the Chief Manager/Regional Manager of the petitionerBanlc to remainpresent in Court,
3. On 3'"'' May, 2011, the Chief Manager was not able to attend. the Court as his wife was suffering from jaundice whereupon the learned Magistrate imposed cost of Rs.800/- per case and adjourned the cases to 7^'^ June, 2011.
4. On June, 2011, the Chief Manager of the petitioner Bank attended the Court but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the power of attorney of the petitioner banlc in favour of the authorized representative of the Bank whereupon the learned Magistrate imposed further cost of Rs.1,500/- per case. The learned Magistrate further directed the copy of the order to be sent to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Petitioner Bank with a request to direct the concerned officers to prosecute the case diligently and a further direction that the copy of the action taken by the office ofthe Chairman.be sent to the Court.
5. Aggrieved against the imposition of cost and passing of adverse remarks, the petitioner challenged the orders dated 3''^ May, 2011 and 7^^ June, 2011 before this Court on the ground that the learned Magistrate had to consider at the stage of presummoning evidence as to whether the case has been made out for issuance of the summons to the accused and the learned Magistrate acted in excess of his jurisdiction by directing the presence of the Chief Manager as well as passing a direction that the Banlc was not pursuing the matter diligently and it must be brought to the notice of the Chairman who should file the action taken report before the Magistrate.
6. On 19^^ July, 2011, the petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner has filed the petitions before this Court whereupon the learned Magistrate imposed further cost of Rs.2,900/- in each case.
7. Vide order dated 30"' August, 2011,. this Court stayed the proceedings of the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 3''^ August, 2011, this Court modified the said order and permitted the learned Trial Court to proceed further in the matters but no final order be passed. Vide order dated 19"' October, 2012, this Court directed the learned Magistrate notto insist,on thepayment of cost and the submission of the action taken' report.
8. On 19'^' January, 2013, the learned Magistrate recalled the orders dated 3'^ May, 2011 and 7"' June, 2011 with respect to the cost imposed and the action taken report upon statement of the petitioner thatthey would.withdraw thepetitions before this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order dated 19"' January, 201.[3] and the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate.
10. These petitions have become infructuous in view of the recall ofthe orders dated 3''^ May, 2011 and f' June, 2011 by the learned Magistrate on 19"' January, 2013. The petitions are, therefore, disposed ofas infructuous. However, this court is ofthe view that the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in directing the presence of the Chief Manager, directing the copy to be sent to the Chairman ofthe Baiilc and to call for the action taken report and repeatedly imposing cost on the petitioner. The learned Magistrate is advised to be careflil in future.
11. Copy ofthis order besent totheconcerned Magisteate. JUtY 08, 2013 aj/dk J.R. MIDHA, J