Full Text
Translation output
$-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI i CRL.L.P. 21(4/2011
; HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD Petitioner ;! I; Through: Mr.Hasan Anzar, Advocate.
!i ,1 .
;!
; HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD Petitioner ;! I; Through: Mr.Hasan Anzar, Advocate.
!i ,1 .
;!
VERSUS
If ;
1! i! I PUR POLYURETHANE PRODUCT PVT. LTD. & ORS
;i Respondents II Ii Through: Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
•! !. i CORAM:
! HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ll
|i 14.02.2013 CRlLp. 214/2011
•i •'
I Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the leave petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. I order accordingly.
•I
Registry is directed to register the appeal.
II • ii Thecriminal leave petition stands disposed of
CrLAlNo. 2^^/2013 (To be numbered)
; With the consent ofthe parties, arguments heard.
!! / ii The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order ofacquittal dated 24.07.2010 oflearned CCJ/ARC/ACJ (South). The appellant had preferred complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
2013:DHC:8344 Instruments Act. The proceedings were contested by the respondents.
However, on 24.07.2010 none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Vide order dated 24.07.2010 the complaint case was dismissed in default under
Section 256 Cr.P.C. The respondents were acquitted. The appellant preferred Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the revision against the order of acquittal was not
^ maintainable and the proper remedy before the complainant was to file an appeal before this Court.
On scrutinizing the record, it reveals that the appellant was pursuing its complaint diligently. The respondents had also made payment to the complainant which was admitted by the authorized representatives.
There was some dispute over payment of interest on the principal amount.
When none appeared on behalf of the appellant on 24.07.2010, the complaint was dismissed in default under Section 256 Cr.P.C. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that he y had no objection to allow the appeal subject to payment of costs. I am also ofthe view that for single default on 24.07.2010 the appellant should not be subjected to order of dismissal of complaint case.
In the interest of justice and to enable the appellant to get his case decided on merits, and taking into consideration that the respondents have no objection to allow the appeal. The impugned order dated
24.07.2010 is set asideand the appeal is allowed subjectto cost of ?3,000/-.
The complaint case is ordered to be restored to its original number.
Parties are directed to appear before the Trialicourt on 11^*^
March, 2013.
The appeal stands disposed of.
.GARG5 J.
FEBRUARY 14,2013 sa
1! i! I PUR POLYURETHANE PRODUCT PVT. LTD. & ORS
;i Respondents II Ii Through: Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
•! !. i CORAM:
! HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ll
|i 14.02.2013 CRlLp. 214/2011
•i •'
I Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the leave petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. I order accordingly.
•I
Registry is directed to register the appeal.
II • ii Thecriminal leave petition stands disposed of
CrLAlNo. 2^^/2013 (To be numbered)
; With the consent ofthe parties, arguments heard.
!! / ii The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order ofacquittal dated 24.07.2010 oflearned CCJ/ARC/ACJ (South). The appellant had preferred complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
2013:DHC:8344 Instruments Act. The proceedings were contested by the respondents.
However, on 24.07.2010 none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Vide order dated 24.07.2010 the complaint case was dismissed in default under
Section 256 Cr.P.C. The respondents were acquitted. The appellant preferred Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2010 primarily on the ground that the revision against the order of acquittal was not
^ maintainable and the proper remedy before the complainant was to file an appeal before this Court.
On scrutinizing the record, it reveals that the appellant was pursuing its complaint diligently. The respondents had also made payment to the complainant which was admitted by the authorized representatives.
There was some dispute over payment of interest on the principal amount.
When none appeared on behalf of the appellant on 24.07.2010, the complaint was dismissed in default under Section 256 Cr.P.C. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that he y had no objection to allow the appeal subject to payment of costs. I am also ofthe view that for single default on 24.07.2010 the appellant should not be subjected to order of dismissal of complaint case.
In the interest of justice and to enable the appellant to get his case decided on merits, and taking into consideration that the respondents have no objection to allow the appeal. The impugned order dated
24.07.2010 is set asideand the appeal is allowed subjectto cost of ?3,000/-.
The complaint case is ordered to be restored to its original number.
Parties are directed to appear before the Trialicourt on 11^*^
March, 2013.
The appeal stands disposed of.
.GARG5 J.
FEBRUARY 14,2013 sa
JUDGMENT