Full Text
Translation output
$-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.402/2014
M/S K&CO THROUGHITS MANAGER Petitioner II
Through: Mr. Davinder N. Grover, Advocate with
Mr.Rajeev Wassan,Advocate I
CRL.L.P.402/2014
M/S K&CO THROUGHITS MANAGER Petitioner II
Through: Mr. Davinder N. Grover, Advocate with
Mr.Rajeev Wassan,Advocate I
VERSUS
, PAAMPHARMACEUTICALS LTD&ORS Respondent |
Through: Mr.Atul Sahi,Advocate :
Through: Mr.Atul Sahi,Advocate :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
06.01.2016 Having heard learned counsel forthe parties,this Court is ofthe view that
I there are sufficient grounds for grant ofleave to appeal.
Accordingly, the Criminal Leave Petition is allowed. The matter is directed to be registered as Criminal Appeal.
CRL.A. /ft /2016(To beNumbered! The present is an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) assailing the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court(NI Act), Saket, New jDelhi
•• • " I j whereby Complaint Case No.2353/1 titled as "K and Co. V5. Paam Pharma &
Ors. under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 instituted by j the appellant/complainant was dismissed in default. n n n !
A perusal ofthe said order reveals that the order impugned herein was
I occasioned on account ofthe mistake on the part ofthe counsel appearing on
I
2016:DHC:8886
<*'■
V- 7 , n behalf of the appellant herein in recording the next date of hearing before the concerned Magistrate. The extract of the case diary of the counsel for the appellant is annexed to the present appeal as Annexure P-5 in support of his submission.
After hearing counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellant has not been negligent in prosecuting the complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
In view of the foregoing, the plea urged on behalf of the appellant seems to be genuine. The complaint filed on behalf of the appellant has not been heard or adjudicated on merits.
In my considered opinion, an opportunity must be granted to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
Thepresent appeal is, consequently, allowed. The order impugnedherein dated 15.04.2014 is set aside. The complaint case being CC No.2353/1 titled
"K and Co. V5. Paam Pharma & Ors. ", under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is restored to its original number and remanded back to the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court (NI Act), Saket subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the private respondent within aperiod of two weeks from today.
List this matter before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on
02.02.2016 for hearing and adjudication of the above mentioned complaint case in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly.
A copy ofthis order be sentto the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for necessary information and compliance.
SIDDIjrARTH MRIDUL,J JANUARY 06,2016 dn
-■c
06.01.2016 Having heard learned counsel forthe parties,this Court is ofthe view that
I there are sufficient grounds for grant ofleave to appeal.
Accordingly, the Criminal Leave Petition is allowed. The matter is directed to be registered as Criminal Appeal.
CRL.A. /ft /2016(To beNumbered! The present is an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) assailing the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court(NI Act), Saket, New jDelhi
•• • " I j whereby Complaint Case No.2353/1 titled as "K and Co. V5. Paam Pharma &
Ors. under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 instituted by j the appellant/complainant was dismissed in default. n n n !
A perusal ofthe said order reveals that the order impugned herein was
I occasioned on account ofthe mistake on the part ofthe counsel appearing on
I
2016:DHC:8886
<*'■
V- 7 , n behalf of the appellant herein in recording the next date of hearing before the concerned Magistrate. The extract of the case diary of the counsel for the appellant is annexed to the present appeal as Annexure P-5 in support of his submission.
After hearing counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellant has not been negligent in prosecuting the complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
In view of the foregoing, the plea urged on behalf of the appellant seems to be genuine. The complaint filed on behalf of the appellant has not been heard or adjudicated on merits.
In my considered opinion, an opportunity must be granted to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
Thepresent appeal is, consequently, allowed. The order impugnedherein dated 15.04.2014 is set aside. The complaint case being CC No.2353/1 titled
"K and Co. V5. Paam Pharma & Ors. ", under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is restored to its original number and remanded back to the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court (NI Act), Saket subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the private respondent within aperiod of two weeks from today.
List this matter before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on
02.02.2016 for hearing and adjudication of the above mentioned complaint case in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly.
A copy ofthis order be sentto the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for necessary information and compliance.
SIDDIjrARTH MRIDUL,J JANUARY 06,2016 dn
-■c
JUDGMENT