Disposed¶13

Cart Infralog Limited v. M/S Morrex Logistics Private Limited and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 May 2026CRR/974/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR 974 of 2026; Cart Infralog Limited v. Morrex Logistics Private Limited; expeditious disposal direction; section 138 read with section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act; section 143(3) N.I. Act statutory timeline; Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024; Judicial Magistrate 1st Court Alipore; delay by accused; absent petitions; maintainability application not pressed; six-month conclusion direction; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; 18.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with a direction upon the court below to make every endeavour to conclude Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 preferably within six months from the next date of hearing; service of copy of the application upon the opposite parties dispensed with. ¶13

Cart Infralog Limited Vs M/S Morrex Logistics Private… — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue upon the court below for expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 (sections 138/141, Negotiable Instruments Act), in view of the delay attributable to the accused and the timeline stipulated by section 143(3) of the N.I. Act.

¶10

Court's answer

The petitioner's prayer for expeditious disposal is justified because section 143(3) of the N.I. Act clearly stipulates a period of time by which such an application is to be disposed of.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The court below is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the entire proceeding being Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

¶13

Key takeaways

The prayer being innocuous and causing the opposite parties no cause of prejudice, service of copy of the application upon the opposite parties is dispensed with.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 974 of 2026 (decided 18.05.2026, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) — Cart Infralog Limited v. M/s. Morrex Logistics Private Limited & Ors.: Complainant's criminal revision seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court, Alipore. Filed 17.05.2024; process issued 06.09.2024; accused appeared 16.11.2024 but thereafter absented themselves; their first maintainability application was not pressed and by order dated 07.05.2026 the court below granted time for a fresh maintainability application, fixing 08.06.2026. Holding the prayer justified since section 143(3) of the N.I. Act stipulates a period for disposal, and dispensing with service on the opposite parties as the prayer was innocuous, the Court disposed of the revision directing the court below to make every endeavour to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within six months from the next date of hearing.

¶1

18.5.2026 24. BD

¶2

CRR 974 of 2026

¶3

Cart Infralog Limited Vs.

¶4

M/s. Morrex Logistics Private Limited & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Anirban Dutta

¶6

Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee …for the Petitioner

¶7

In this application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the court below for expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 registered under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Court, Alipore.

¶8

Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay caused in disposal of the said proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on May 17, 2024 the complaint case was filed and thereafter process was issued after examining the complainant’s witnesses on 06.09.2024. Thereafter, the accused persons appeared before the Court on 16.11.2024 but thereafter he remained absent from court by filing absent petitions. He further submits that the petitioner initially filed one application challenging maintainability of the proceeding but thereafter it was not pressed by the accused. Again, the accused person sought for time to file maintainability application afresh and the court below by an order dated 07.05.2026 allowed the accused person’s prayer and granted them time to file application challenging maintainability and the next date was fixed on 08.06.2026.

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons are intentionally avoiding the process of the court and they are dragging the proceeding at the indulgence of the court below and therefore he prayed for a direction upon the court below for expeditious disposal of the complaint case.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner is innocuous and if it is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein, the opposite parties will have no cause to prejudice and as such, the service of copy of application upon the opposite parties is hereby dispensed with.

¶12

Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and after going through the certified copy of order sheet as well as the trial court record, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified in view of the fact that section 143(3) of the N.I. Act, clearly stipulates a period of time by which such application is to be disposed of.

¶13

In view of the above, the instant application being CRR 974 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the court below to make every endeavour to conclude the entire proceeding being Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2024 preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.

¶14

¶15

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶16

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Cart Infralog Limited v. M/S Morrex Logistics Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cart Infralog Limited v. M/S Morrex Logistics Private Limited and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Uco Bank(Formerly Known United Commercial Bank) Vs Madhuri Gupta A.K.A. Jaiswal & Anr.

Moumita Nag Vs Anirban Nag

Father of Xxx Vs State of West Bengal

Reserve Bank of India, Human Resource Management Department Vs Lopamudra Singha Roy and Others

Sabyasachi Mandal and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Suchitra Baidya Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.