Full Text
Translation output
$-16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 212/2011 ;
HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD Petitioner
Through : Mr.Hasan Anzar, Advocate.
I, I
CRL.L.P. 212/2011 ;
HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICAL LTD Petitioner
Through : Mr.Hasan Anzar, Advocate.
I, I
VERSUS
PUR POLYURETHANE PRODUCT PVT. LTD. & ORS Respondents
Through : Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
Through : Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
14.02.2013
14.02.2013
CRL.L.P. 212/2011 :
Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the leave petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. I order accordingly.
Registry is directed to register the appeal.
The criminal leave ii)etitiori stands disposed of.
Crl.A.No. IXS /2013 (To be numbered)
With the consent ofthe parties, arguments heard.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of acquittal dated 24.07.2010 of learned CCJ/ARC/ACJ (South). The
; •! appellant had preferred complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
2013:DHC:8347 Instruments Act. The proceedings were contested by the respondents.
However, on 24.07.2010 none appeared on behalfofthe 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 had no objection to allow the appeal subject to payment ofcosts. 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 isset aside and the appeal isallowed subject tocost of^3,000/-.
The complaint case is ordered to be restored to its original number.
,'y Parties are directed to appear March, 2013. ? i j
1; ; ;
The appeal stands.disposed o£ FEBRUARY 14,2013 sa il
0 *•
)m; th before the Trial court on 11 tP.GARG, J.
Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the leave petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. I order accordingly.
Registry is directed to register the appeal.
The criminal leave ii)etitiori stands disposed of.
Crl.A.No. IXS /2013 (To be numbered)
With the consent ofthe parties, arguments heard.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of acquittal dated 24.07.2010 of learned CCJ/ARC/ACJ (South). The
; •! appellant had preferred complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable
2013:DHC:8347 Instruments Act. The proceedings were contested by the respondents.
However, on 24.07.2010 none appeared on behalfofthe 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 had no objection to allow the appeal subject to payment ofcosts. 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 isset aside and the appeal isallowed subject tocost of^3,000/-.
The complaint case is ordered to be restored to its original number.
,'y Parties are directed to appear March, 2013. ? i j
1; ; ;
The appeal stands.disposed o£ FEBRUARY 14,2013 sa il
0 *•
)m; th before the Trial court on 11 tP.GARG, J.
JUDGMENT