Partly allowed

Sanjay Kumar Modi v. M/S L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack

Orissa HC18 Sept 2025CRLREV/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a revision petition against the dismissal of a cheque dishonour complaint. The Court directed the High Court to restore the matter, requiring the High Court to direct the petitioner to file an affidavit regarding the address and explore other means of service, such as via Special Messenger.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition disposed of with a direction to restore the CCR case file to the learned JMFC to consider directions for serving notice via affidavit or Special Messenger.

Sanjay Kumar Modi Vs M/S L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.18 of 2024

¶3

Sanjay Kumar Modi …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. D. Ray, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

M/s L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd., …. Opposite Parties Cuttack and others

¶7

Mr. A. Sahu, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

18.09.2025

Order No.

Mr. learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 27^th September, 2023 and to direct the learned JMFC (City), Cuttack to take cognizance of the offences under Section 138 NI Act and Section 420 IPC vis-àvis the opposite parties for the reasons stated.

¶15

Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the correct address of opposite party No.4 of the drawer of the cheque, notice was issued by the learned court below, however, it could not be served, at last, the complaint was dismissed vide Annexure-1. The submission is that opposite party No.4 belongs to the family of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and correct address was furnished but then, learned court below on the premise that the notice could not be served in such address as the postal endorsement was received back as ‘addressee not located’, the complaint was dismissed.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is present.

¶18

The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties. While entertaining the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties by the learned court below but it could not be served against opposite party No.4. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner used to collect the cheque from opposite party No.4 from the place and its address was furnished to the learned court below and for the reason that the notice could not be served on him, the complaint was dismissed.

¶19

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3, who requests for an adjournment to reply to the affidavit filed by the petitioner. However, considering the plea of the petitioner with regard to the impugned order dated 27^th September, 2023 leading to the dismissal of the complaint failing to ensure service of notice against opposite party No.4, the Court is inclined to dispose of the revision by the following order instead of allowing opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to file a reply to the affidavit at Flag-A.

¶20

The claim of the petitioner is that the correct address of opposite party No.4 was furnished to the learned court below. If with such a postal remark, the notice was received back that opposite party No.4 could not be located, it was for the learned

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

court below to ensure service of such notice by other means with a direction to the petitioner in that regard. When such notice returned back unserved with a postal endorsement ‘addressee not located’, according to the Court, the petitioner could have been directed by the learned court below to file an affidavit stating therein about the address furnished to be correct one. By such other means, the learned court below could have ensured service of notice on opposite party No.4 but no such exercise was undertaken and ultimately, the complaint was dismissed. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to file such an affidavit and if learned court below is inclined to ensure service of notice on opposite party No.4 by such other means even through a Special Messenger with the cost deposited, it may resort to. The Court is also view that the other grounds which have been advanced from the side of the petitioner are needed to be duly examined by the learned court below. The further plea of the petitioner regarding Section 27 of the General Clauses Act to be applicable is also to be duly taken judicial notice of by the learned court below, if in case, notice vis-à-vis opposite party No.4 is considered to be unnecessary and deemed to be served.

¶23

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid with the proceeding in 1CC Case No.107 of 2023 directed to be restored to file to consider the

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

plea of the petitioner vis-à-vis notice on opposite party No.4 and thereafter, to pass appropriate order according to law.

¶27

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

Rojina

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 19-Sep-2025 17:14:06

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Sanjay Kumar Modi v. M/S L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Modi v. M/S L.M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack

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

Prakash Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Rudra Pratap Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Sundara Vs State of Odisha

Pintu Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Bishnu Charan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Manaswini Sahoo Vs Poonam Kumar Sahu