Disposed¶10

Saukat Ali v. Goutam Chakraborty

Calcutta HC21 May 2026CRR/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Saukat Ali v. Goutam Chakraborty, CRR/5/2025, Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, order dated 21.05.2026, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. — expeditious disposal of Section 138 NI Act complaint (C. Case No.2137 of 2019, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat); inordinate delay of about seven years with no witness examined; Section 143(3) NI Act time-limit mandate invoked; revision disposed of with direction to conclude trial preferably within six months from next date of hearing; opposite party unrepresented; advocate: Mr. Pronojit Roy for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the Court below (learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat) to make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of C. Case No.2137 of 2019 and to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within six months from the next date of hearing. ¶10

Saukat Ali Vs Goutam Chakraborty — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

21.05.2026 Sl. No.21. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29.

¶2

CRR/5/2025 Saukat Ali Vs. Goutam Chakraborty

¶3

Mr. Pronojit Roy

¶4

…for the petitioners.

¶5

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Opposite party is not represented.

¶6

In this application the petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of C. Case No.2137 of 2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Court, Barasat.

¶7

Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay in disposal of the said proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/petitioner filed the said complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 18^th November, 2019. The plea was taken on 3^rd March, 2022. Thereafter several dates were fixed for recording of evidence but till date not a single witness could be examined as the opposite party is taking time one after another on the dates fixed by using dilatory tactics. He further submits that due to such indulgence given by the Court below, the matter is being dragged on for last 7 years, though Section 143(3) of the N.I.Act clearly mandates that the Court should take every endeavour for disposal of such proceeding within a specific time limit.

¶8

¶9

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified, the instant application is required to be allowed to secure the ends of justice.

¶10

In view of above, CRR 5 of 2025 is disposed of with a direction upon the Court below to make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of the proceeding being C. Case No.2137 of 2019 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Court, Barasat and to make his best effort to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

¶11

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

¶12

( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )

Saukat Ali v. Goutam Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saukat Ali v. Goutam Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manjunath v. Hebbar Alias Manjunath Hebbar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Manjunath v. Hebbar Alias Manjunath Hebbar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Abdul Rashid Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Purnima Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tanusree Pan Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sujit Shaw Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.