Explore a significant legal ruling from the Delhi High Court involving Dr. Rakesh Kumar HUF and M/s Gardenia India Ltd. The case revolves around a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Find out how the court’s decision impacted the parties involved and the implications of the judgement.
Facts
- The matter was repeatedly adjourned due to the absence of the petitioners’ presence in court.
- The respondent kept taking adjournments, delaying the service of fresh summons on the petitioners.
- The court noted that the Managing Director of the petitioner company was aware of the proceedings but did not take steps to represent the company before the court.
- A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the petitioners to be paid to the respondent.
- The court allowed the petition and pending application.
- The counsel for the respondent filed the CPC on 12.07.2018, further delaying the proceedings.
- The court deemed the service of summons on petitioner no. 2 as complete, as per tracking records.
- The court observed that petitioner no. 2 was served on the very first date of the proceedings.
- The matter was listed for ex-parte evidence on a later date.
- The court accepted the report regarding the service of defendant no. 2.
- The petitioners did not appear for multiple hearings, leading to delays and adjournments.
- Fresh summons were ordered to be issued against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, returnable on 29.01.2018.
- The petitioners were proceeded ex-parte on multiple occasions due to non-appearance.
- Directions were passed for defendant no. 2 to file a written statement within three weeks.
- The petitioner company appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate and applied for compounding the case.
- Original postal receipts and a tracking report were submitted by the counsel for the respondent on 06.12.2018.
- Multiple adjournments were granted due to the unavailability of the Presiding Officer.
- The present petition was filed under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
- The counsel for the respondent requested an adjournment to provide a service report on affidavit for petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
- Notices were served on the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate, but awaited service reports for petitioner nos.1 and 2.
Arguments
- Petitioner no.1 is a body corporate
- Petitioner no.2 is the chairman of summons of the suit
- Notice of the interim application against the petitioners was returnable on 26.09.2017
- Respondent instituted a compliant case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act bearing no. 23557/2016 titled as ‘Dr. Rakesh Kumar HUF vs M/s Gardenia India Ltd & Ors.’
Decision
- Compounding application was allowed by the court.
- Petitioners deposited the entire payment of the dishonored cheques amounting to Rs. 26,68,150/-
- Interest was paid at the rate of 9% per annum.
- Litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- was also paid.
Case Title: MANOJ ARORA Vs. MAMTA ARORA (2024:DHC:3903)
Case Number: CM(M)-1212/2021
