Dismissed¶15

Shivani Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023/5746/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral citation 2023:AHC-LKO:46708; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 12; Application U/S 482 No. 5746 of 2023, decided 18.7.2023 by Rajeev Singh, J.; quashing of S.138 N.I. Act complaint order (Complaint Case No. 127401 of 2022); cheque dishonour; solar plant; disputed claim Rs.4,37,200/-; mediation declined; no interference; dismissed. Counsel: Kunwar Ravi Prakash (applicants), G.A. (State), Aishwarya Pratap Singh (respondent no. 2).

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the arguments, the contents of the complaint, the application and other relevant documents, there is a dispute of amount between the parties and respondent no. 2 is reluctant to join mediation. ¶13

Shivani Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46708

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5746 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shivani Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of the private respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

In pursuance of the earlier order, respondent no. 2 is present before this Court and duly identified by his counsel.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶9

This application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 127401 of 2022, (M/s. Arora Power System Vs. Scope Hospital & Ors.), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the false claim amounting to Rs.4,37,200/- has been raised in the complaint. It is further submitted that the money, which was already paid to respondent no. 2, has not been adjusted by him. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶11

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that a solar plant was installed on the order made by the applicants, for which, post dated cheques were given by the applicants to respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the as cheques were dishonoured, under compulsion, the complaint was filed. It is lastly submitted that all these questions of fact can be examined by the

¶12

court below.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the complaint, application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there is dispute of amount in between the parties and the respondent no. 2 is reluctant to join the mediation.

¶14

In view of above facts and circumstances, no case for interference is made out.

¶15

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 VKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivani Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivani Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neha Srivastava Proprietor N v System Gorakhpur Vs the State of U.P. and Anr.

Suleman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mata Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kalaam Mohammad Nafees and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Ankit @ Ankit Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, C Block, Lok Bhawan Lko. and Another