Remanded

M/S Aliz Jewelers v. M/S A.M. Gems

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2025CRLMP/3943/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition by jewelers against an order reducing the 20-day notice period for cheque payment. Following Supreme Court rulings, it held that the statutory period cannot be reduced and remanded for formal corrections.

What did the court decide?

The order directing reduction of the notice period is remanded to the High Court to ensure compliance with mandatory 20-day statutory requirements.

M/S Aliz Jewelers Vs M/S A.M. Gems — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:26149]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3943/2025

¶4

M/s Aliz Jewelers, Through Proprietor Liaqat Ali, Resident House No. 2502, Bhadhiya Bhawan, Behind Jain Mandir, Chaksu Chowk, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

Liaqat Ali S/o Sayyed, Proprietor M/s Aliz Jewelers C/o Sayyed Liyakat Sadekaar, Resident Of House No. 2502, Bhadhiya Bhawan, Behind Jain Mandir, Chaksu Chowk, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s A.m. Gems, Through Proprietor Shri Aadil Illahi S/o Late Aarif Illahi, Resident Of House No. 3562, Moti Katla Bazar, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Farooq Ahmed For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

14/07/2025

¶14

;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds varxZr vihyh; U;k;ky; ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k t;iqj egkuxj izFke }kjk QkStnkjh vihy la[;k 236@2025 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-04-2025 ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZ dks 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr tek djus ds vkns'k fn, x, Fks] mls vikLr djus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶15

;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ gS fd vkns'k fnukad 15-04-2025 esa lacaf/kr vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ij {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k dk dqy 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k ltk LFkxu dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds lkFk /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr tek djkus ds vkns'k

[2025:RJ-JP:26149]

[CRLMP-3943/2025]

(2 of 3)

fn, x, gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd mDr vkns'k ;kaf=d :i ls ikfjr fd;k x;k gS vkSj U;k;ky; us ;kph ds lanHkZ esa mDr vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; fof/kd fLFkfr dk Bhd <ax ls foospu ugha fd;k gSA bl lanHkZ esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2741/2023, Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 5491/2024 dk voyac fy;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kfpdkdrkZ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr mDr nksuksa n`"Vkarksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd lacaf/kr vihyh; U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr 20 izfr'kr dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vf/kjksfir fd, tkus ds lanHkZ esa ;qfDr;qDr ,oa mfpr dkj.k nf'kZr djus pkfg, Fks vkSj vihyh; U;k;ky; mDr dkj.kksa dks mYysf[kr djrs gq, mDr vkns'k ikfjr djus pkfg, FksA

¶20

U;kf;d n`"Vkar Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e dh O;k[;k djrs gq, ;g ekuk gS fd /kkjk 148 esa iz;qDr 'kCn ''Shall'' dk rkRi;Z vkKkid ugha gS] vfirq blesa nksuksa LFkkuksa ij ''May'' 'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k gSA vr% ;g U;k;ky; dk foosdkf/kdkj gS fd og /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e esa izkfof/kr 20 izfr'kr dh {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k dks de djus ds lanHkZ esa fopkj dj ldrk gSA

¶21

Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr. esa izfrikfnr n"Vkar esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State (Supra) ds fu.kZ; dk voyac ysrs gq, iSjk ua- 27 esa ,sls n"Vkar of.kZr fd, gSa] ftudks vk/kkj ekudj vihyh; U;k;ky; 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k ds fuLrkj.k ds lanHkZ esa vius foosdkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gSA vr% mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh jks'kuh esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; }kjk tks ;kaf=d :i ls 20 izfr'kr {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k vf/kjksfir djus ds lanHkZ

[2025:RJ-JP:26149]

[CRLMP-3943/2025]

(3 of 3)

esa vkns'k ikfjr fd, x, gSa mDr vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkdj lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dks funsZf'kr fd;k tk, fd og iqu% i{kdkjksa dks lqudj mDr 20 izfr'kr jkf'k ds lanHkZ esa foosdkuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr djsaA

¶26

cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶27

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr ekx Z n'kZu o izfrikfnr fl)karksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izLrqr izdj.k esa ;g Li"Vr% izdV gksrk gS fd lacaf/kr vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ dh /kkjk 138 ,uvkbZ ,DV esa izLrqr vihy ds lanHkZ esa LFkxu vkns'k ikfjr djus ds lkFk /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa tek djus ds tks funsZ'k iznku fd, x, gSa] mDr funsZ'k ;kaf=d :i ls ikfjr fd, x, gSa vkSj mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izdV gks fd izdj.k esa U;wure 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k vf/kjksfir djuk vfuok;Z gSA bl lanHkZ esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k fnukad 15-04-2025 esa /kkjk 148 ijdzkE; foys[k vf/kfu;e esa vf/kjksfir {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k tek djk, tkus dh lhek rd vikLr fd;k tkdj lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dks ekeyk bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfr iszf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og iqu% nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds mijkar mDr {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk fu/kkZj.k djsaA

¶28

mijksDr vuqlkj mDr ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

RAMESHWAR PRASHAD /65

M/S Aliz Jewelers v. M/S A.M. Gems

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aliz Jewelers v. M/S A.M. Gems

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hukumchand Son of Shri Laxminarain Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramnath @ Pilot S/O Rajaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sita Ram S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini Vs Smt. Manju Soni W/O Shree Radheshyam Soni

Saiyad Majid Ali S/O Shri Saiyad Sajid Ali Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Charu Beniwal W/O Parth Beniwal D/O Late Shri Ashumitra Singh Dev, Vs Parth Beniwal S/O Pradeep Beniwal (Husband)

M/S Aliz Jewelers Vs M/S A.M. Gems