M/S Konark Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S India… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

M/S Konark Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S India… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after restoration of the company; pendency period from 13.01.2020 to 06.03.2026 excluded from limitation; condonation-of-delay application dismissed with liberty to club any other delay with due explanation in the fresh petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petition is maintainable in view of the respondents' preliminary objection that the complainant company's name was struck off from the register of the Registrar of Companies on 30.06.2017, leaving no legal person to file/pursue the matter. +1 more

Court's answer

The present revision petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh after restoration of the company.

Ratio / Principle

The time for which the present petition remained pending before this Court, i.e., from 13.01.2020 (when the first affidavit was attested) till 06.03.2026, shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation.

Key takeaways

The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh with the fresh petition by clubbing any other delay, with due explanation.ratio¶5
All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR-836-2020 O&M, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Anoop Chitkara, J., 06.03.2026) by M/S Konark Infra Developers Pvt Ltd against the judgment dated 12.04.2017 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram, acquitting the private respondent and setting aside the conviction (25.11.2014) and sentence (26.11.2014) passed by the JMIC, Gurugram under Sections 138 and 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, under which Satpal Khanduja had been sentenced to one year RI and Rs. 2,00,00,000/- compensation. Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the complainant company's name was struck off from the Registrar of Companies' register on 30.06.2017, leaving no legal person to pursue the matter. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw and refile after restoration of the company. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after restoration, clarified that the pendency period from 13.01.2020 to 06.03.2026 shall not count towards limitation, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 969 days with liberty to club any other delay with due explanation in the fresh petition. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

CRR-836-2020 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CRR-836-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.03.2026

M/S KONARK INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ......... Pe��oner

Versus

M/S INDIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS AND ANOTHER ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the pe��oner.

Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms. Bhanu Singh Rohilla, Advocate for the respondents.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

The present criminal revision pe��on has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the learned Sessions Court has acqui2ed the private respondent and set aside the order of convic�on dated 25.11.2014 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2014 passed by learned JMIC, Gurugram under Sec�on 138 and 141 of Nego�able Instruments Act, 1881 Satpal Khanduja was convicted and to undergo 01 year RI and pay compensa�on amoun�ng to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to the complainant, pe��oner has come up before this Court by filing present revision pe��on along with an applica�on for condona�on of delay of 969 days in refiling the pe��on.

Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objec�on that the name of the complainant’s company was struck off from the register of Registrar of Companies on 30.06.2017. He further submits that the ma2er was filed a@er the name had been struck off, as such, as of date, there is no legal en�ty which could be considered as legal person to file the ma2er and the en�re process is illegal.

However, counsel for the pe��oner submits that the pe��oner had filed an applica�on for revoca�on of the name of the company with the Registrar of Companies. He

JYOTI 2026.03.10 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRR-836-2020 (O&M) 2

further submits that he be permi2ed to withdraw the present pe��on with liberty to file afresh and in case, he files a fresh pe��on, the �me for which the present pe��on was pending before this Court may not be counted for the purpose of limita�on.

Counsel for the respondents opposes such request and submits that even in the beginning, the company was not a legal person and as such, the ini�al ma2er itself once without any jurisdic�on was withdrawn and even if, the name is restored it will not claim any right to the pe��oner to revive the ma2er.

Given above, present revision pe��on is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the pe��oner to file afresh a@er restora�on of the company. It is clarified that �me for which the present pe��on remained pending before this Court i.e. from 13.01.2020 when the first affidavit was a2ested �ll today i.e. 06.03.2026 shall not be counted for the purpose of limita�on. Applica�on for condona�on of delay is dismissed with liberty to the pe��oner to file afresh with the fresh pe��on by clubbing with other delay if any, with due explana�on. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

		(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
06.03.2026
Jyo�-II
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

JYOTI 2026.03.10 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.