Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Vikas Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Kanika Investments Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (18 Nov 2020)

A common order for summoning in different cases cannot be passed, when parties are unrelated

MANU/DE/2067/2020

Criminal

Vide the present petition; the Petitioners have sought quashing of the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings qua complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the learned Trial Court.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that, the complaint filed by the Respondent bearing Complaint Case No. 1565/19 was under Section 25(1) read with Section 26 of the Payment & Systems Act and Section 138 read with Section 148 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and not simplicitor under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that a common order could not have been passed by the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 1566/19, 1567/19 as well as in the Complaint Case No. 1565/19.

The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that, the prescribed procedure as provided under the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007, for determination of the aspect of liabilities for alleged commission of offences is provided thereunder and that the offences mentioned under the said enactment are not completely in pari materia with the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

In the circumstances of the instant case as it has been brought forth clearly through the record that, even the parties to Complaint Case No. 1566/2019, 1565/2019 (out of which the impugned order arises) and Complaint Case No. 1567/19, do not relate to the same parties and apparently no such common order could have been passed in relation to Complaint Case No. 1565/19 with other cases.

In the circumstances, as no common order could have been passed by the learned Trial Court in the circumstances, where the parties to the case also differ and where it was incumbent on the learned Trial Court to ascertain the applicability of the provisions of Payment & Settlements Systems Act, 2007, to the averments made to the complaint in Complaint Case No. 1565/19, the impugned order is thus set aside with the matter being remanded back to the learned Trial Court to consider the aspect of summoning.

Tags : SUMMONS   COMMON ORDER   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved