Allowed

Paras Metals v. S S Engineering

Delhi HC1 Sept 2011CRL.A./1126/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed leave to appeal and set aside the trial court's order dismissing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court found that sufficient time was provided but the complainant failed to place signatory details on record. The complaints were restored and for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18th January 2010 dismissing the complaints is set aside. The complaints are restored to their original position for further proceedings before the trial court.

Paras Metals Vs S S Engineering — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Signing Date:13.08.2024 17:08:35 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶3

Crl. L.P. Nos. 94/2010, 95/2010 & 96/2010

¶4

Despite service, none is present on behalf of the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned Trial Court has erroneously passed the order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner. The reason for dismissal that despite sufficient time provided to the complainant neither the names of the signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on record, though the counsel for the Petitioner was present on the said date, is contrary to facts and law.

¶5

For the reasons stated in the petition, the leave to appeal is granted.

¶6

Leave to appeal petitions stand disposed of.

¶7

Crl. Appeal Nos./'1.2.62011/, 2011 & /2011 (To be numbered)

¶8

Registry to number the Appeals.

¶9

The Petitioner had filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Respondent. During the pendency of the complaint the Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court. On 6th July, 2009 the learned counsel for the complainant was present when the learned trial court directed the Appellant to furnish the name of the Managing Director/Proprietor of concerned firm/signatory of the cheque and the case was fixed for 5th November, 2009. On that day the Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page2 of 4

¶10

·:"!

¶11

time was sought by the Complainant for compliance of the order dated 6th July, 2009 and the matter was fixed for 18th January, 2010. On 18th January, 2010 learned trial comt at 2:00 p.m. dismissed the complaint of the Appellant for non-prosecution observing that dasti summons were taken by the Complainant which were not placed on record. Sufficient time had been provided to the Complainant. Neither the name of signatory nor the proprietor of the accused firm is placed on file and dismissed the said complaints. It is contended that the complaint was dismissed when the matter was listed only for further proceedings. On the previous date there was no order for issue of process and the matter was adjourned only for furnishing the details of the proprietor/signatory of the Respondent. The court had thus not applied its judicial mind while dismissing the said complaints.

¶12

From the perusal of record, it is apparent that the counsel for the Appellant was present before the learned trial court when the complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution. The only reason stated for dismissal of the complaints was non-submission of the name of the proprietor/signatory of the accused firm. The Appellant and his counsel have been following the present case since 2007 diligently and carefully, thus further opportunity Crl. L.P. Nos. 94,95 & 96/2010 page3 of4

¶13

page3 of4

¶14

could have been granted by the learned trial court. Even in the present leave to appeal petitions notice could be served to Respondents through SHO only. In the facts of the case, the appeals are allowed, subject to costs each to be paid to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks. The order dated 18th January, 2010 dismissing the Complaint Case Nos. 908/1, 909/1 & 910/1 is set aside.

¶15

The complaints are restored to their original position.

¶16

Appeals stand disposed of.

¶17

The parties will appear before the learned trial Court on 14th October,

¶18

¶19

, MUKTA GUPTA,J

¶20

SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 'dk'

¶21

Crl. L.P. Nos. 94.95 & 96/2010

¶22

page 4 of 4

Paras Metals v. S S Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Metals v. S S Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpal Singh Vs State &Ors.

Mitthan Lal Marketing Ltd. Vs Medifix Packaging Industries

Rajesh Kumar Vs State

Paras Metals Vs S S Engineering

Dalip Singh Vs State of Delhi

Bagwan Das Vs State of Delhi & Ors.