Full Text
Translation output
'~ 27,28&29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND
CRL.L.P. 95/2010
PARAS METALS
Through
CRL.L.P. 95/2010
PARAS METALS
Through
VERSUS
..... Petitioner Mr. Arun K. Yadav, Advocate
S S ENGINEERING ..... Respondent
Through None.
S S ENGINEERING ..... Respondent
Through None.
CRL.L.P. 96/2010
PARAS METALS ..... Petitioner AND /o
Through
PARAS METALS ..... Petitioner AND /o
Through
VERSUS
S S ENGINEERING ..... Respondent
CRL.L.P. 94/2010
PARAS METALS
Through None. ..... Petitioner
Through
PARAS METALS
Through None. ..... Petitioner
Through
VERSUS
SSENGINEERING
Through ..... Respondent None.
Through ..... Respondent None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Crl. M.A. Nos.
01.09.2011 /2011, /2011 & /2011(To be numbered)
For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the fresh address ofthe Respondent is condoned. Applications stand disposed of.
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 2011:DHC:7533 Crl. L.P. Nos. 94/2010, 95/2010 & 96/2010
Despite service, none is present on behalf of the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned Trial Court has erroneously passed the order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the complaint of the
Petitioner. The reason for dismissal that despite sufficient time provided to the complainant neither the names of the signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on record, though the counsel for the Petitioner was present on the said date, is contrary to facts and law.
For the reasons stated in the petition, the leave to appeal is granted.
Leave to appeal petitions stand disposed of.
Crl. Appeal Nos./'1.2.62011/, 2011 & /2011 (To be numbered)
Registry to number the Appeals.
The Petitioner had filed complaints under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Respondent. During the pendency of the complaint the Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court. On 6th July, 2009 the learned counsel for the complainant was present when the learned trial court directed the Appellant to furnish the name of the Managing Director/Proprietor of concerned firm/signatory of the cheque and the case was fixed for 5th November, 2009. On that day the
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page2 of 4 time was sought by the Complainant for compliance of the order dated 6th July, 2009 and the matter was fixed for 18th January, 2010. On 18th January, 2010 learned trial comt at 2:00 p.m. dismissed the complaint of the
Appellant for non-prosecution observing that dasti summons were taken by the Complainant which were not placed on record. Sufficient time had been provided to the Complainant. Neither the name of signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on file and dismissed the said complaints. It is contended that the complaint was dismissed when the matter was listed only for further proceedings. On the previous date there was no order for issue of process and the matter was adjourned only for furnishing the details of the proprietor/signatory of the Respondent. The court had thus not applied its judicial mind while dismissing the said complaints.
From the perusal of record, it is apparent that the counsel for the
Appellant was present before the learned trial court when the complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution. The only reason stated for dismissal of the complaints was non-submission of the name of the proprietor/signatory ofthe accused firm. The Appellant and his counsel have been following the present case since 2007 diligently and carefully, thus further opportunity
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page3 of4 could have been granted by the learned trial court. Even in the present leave to appeal petitions notice could be served to Respondents through SHO only.
In the facts ofthe case, the appeals are allowed, subject to costs of~lO,OOO/- each to be paid to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
The order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the Complaint Case Nos.
908/1, 909/1 & 910/1 is set aside.
The complaints are restored to their original position.
Appeals stand disposed of.
The parties will appear before the learned trial Court on 14th October, 2011.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 'dk' Crl. L.P. Nos. 94.95 & 96/2010
~~ , MUKTA GUPTA,J
01.09.2011 /2011, /2011 & /2011(To be numbered)
For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the fresh address ofthe Respondent is condoned. Applications stand disposed of.
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 2011:DHC:7533 Crl. L.P. Nos. 94/2010, 95/2010 & 96/2010
Despite service, none is present on behalf of the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned Trial Court has erroneously passed the order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the complaint of the
Petitioner. The reason for dismissal that despite sufficient time provided to the complainant neither the names of the signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on record, though the counsel for the Petitioner was present on the said date, is contrary to facts and law.
For the reasons stated in the petition, the leave to appeal is granted.
Leave to appeal petitions stand disposed of.
Crl. Appeal Nos./'1.2.62011/, 2011 & /2011 (To be numbered)
Registry to number the Appeals.
The Petitioner had filed complaints under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Respondent. During the pendency of the complaint the Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court. On 6th July, 2009 the learned counsel for the complainant was present when the learned trial court directed the Appellant to furnish the name of the Managing Director/Proprietor of concerned firm/signatory of the cheque and the case was fixed for 5th November, 2009. On that day the
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page2 of 4 time was sought by the Complainant for compliance of the order dated 6th July, 2009 and the matter was fixed for 18th January, 2010. On 18th January, 2010 learned trial comt at 2:00 p.m. dismissed the complaint of the
Appellant for non-prosecution observing that dasti summons were taken by the Complainant which were not placed on record. Sufficient time had been provided to the Complainant. Neither the name of signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on file and dismissed the said complaints. It is contended that the complaint was dismissed when the matter was listed only for further proceedings. On the previous date there was no order for issue of process and the matter was adjourned only for furnishing the details of the proprietor/signatory of the Respondent. The court had thus not applied its judicial mind while dismissing the said complaints.
From the perusal of record, it is apparent that the counsel for the
Appellant was present before the learned trial court when the complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution. The only reason stated for dismissal of the complaints was non-submission of the name of the proprietor/signatory ofthe accused firm. The Appellant and his counsel have been following the present case since 2007 diligently and carefully, thus further opportunity
Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page3 of4 could have been granted by the learned trial court. Even in the present leave to appeal petitions notice could be served to Respondents through SHO only.
In the facts ofthe case, the appeals are allowed, subject to costs of~lO,OOO/- each to be paid to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
The order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the Complaint Case Nos.
908/1, 909/1 & 910/1 is set aside.
The complaints are restored to their original position.
Appeals stand disposed of.
The parties will appear before the learned trial Court on 14th October, 2011.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 'dk' Crl. L.P. Nos. 94.95 & 96/2010
~~ , MUKTA GUPTA,J
JUDGMENT