Application under Section 482 challenging a summon order in a cheque bounce case was dismissed as withdrawn by the applicant, who sought liberty to move an application for compounding.
Application dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to move an application for compounding for future consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6876 of 2021
Applicant :- Shyam Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arpit Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is challenging the order of summoning dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that there is no enforceable debt and if any amount is recoverable, then that debt has became time barred.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant, places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Prajan Kumar Jain vs. Ravi Malhotra; (2009) SCC Online DEL 3383 , secondly, it is submitted that cheque was issued in the name of a Firm namely, 'Tyagi Cold Ware House', whereas the case has been filed by one Lalit Tyagi, claiming himself to be partner of 'Tyagi Cold Ware House' and thirdly, it is submitted that his five cheques were stolen and they have been misappropriated.
All these aspects are matter of evidence, inasmuch as, law is well settled and as is reiterated in Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque and therefore, all the pleas, which have been raised by Sri Arpit Agarwal being matter of evidence, can be tested before the trial court only.
At this stage, Sri Arpit Agarwal prays for withdrawal of this application as he wants to move an application for compounding, which may be directed to be considered by the Magistrate at the right earnest.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn.
However, liberty is granted in favour of the applicant that in case, he chooses to move an application for compounding, then the court shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the law.
Order Date :- 3.9.2021 Vikram/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there exists an enforceable debt or if the debt is time-barred in a cheque bouncing case.
Whether the cheque was issued in the name of a firm or an individual.
Whether the cheques were stolen and misappropriated.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prajan Kumar Jain vs. Ravi MalhotraReferred¶6
Prajan Kumar Jain vs. Ravi Malhotra; (2009) SCC Online DEL 3383 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Veer Singh
State of U.P.
Another
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
