Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved