M/S BLS Infrastructure Limited v. M/S Rajwant Singh & Ors.

1. The petitioner hasfiled the present batch ofpetitionsseekingleaveto appeal againstseparate orders dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned MM, whereby the complaintsfiled bythe petitioner,for dishonouring ofcheques statedto have beenissued byrespondentno.1,wererejected.

2. It is'seen thatthese complaints were rejected for the reason that none had been appearing on behalfofthe petitionerforseveral dates.

3. It is not disputed that the complaints had been listed on several occasions butthe petitionerremained unrepresented.Onsome occasions,the matter was adjourned as the counsel for the accused had submitted that the parties were attempting to compromise the matter. On one ofthe dates, it wasalso submitted thatthe parties had entered into acompromise.

4. The ordersthathave been producedinthe presentpetition also clearly indicate that none had appeared for the complainant(petitioner herein).In the impugned orders, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had noted that none had been present on behalfofthe complainantforthe past many dates. It is also noted that a cost of?2000/- had been imposed on the complainant fornon-appearanceon 15.11.2018.Thesaid costs were also notdeposited.

5. The only explanation provided by the petitioner is that its counsel had misled the petitionerinto believingthatthe matters were being adjourned on accountofthe efforts ofthe partiesto compromisethe said complaints.

6. Considering.that it is not disputed that neither the authorized

I. representative ofthe petitioner nor its counsel had appeared on several dates, this Court is unable to fault the orders impugned in this petition. The contention that the petitioner's counsel was solely responsible for nonrepresentation is also unpersuasive. Concededly, it was also necessary for the petitioner's authorized representative to be present at the hearings. The orders passed by the Courts are now readily available online and the failure on the part of the petitioner's counsel to appear does not absolve the petitioner of its responsibility for ensuring that its complaint is diligently prosecuted.

7. In view of the above, these petitions seeking leave to appeal are unmerited and are rejected.

VIBHU BAKHRU,J NOVEMBER 07,2019 pkv / /