Telestra Trade Place Pvt Ltd vs Jagdambay Builders Pvt Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 4073 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CRIMINAL L.P. No.599 of 2011

                                          Decided on : 11th July , 2012

TELESTRA TRADE PLACE PVT LTD             ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate.

                               versus

JAGDAMBAY BUILDERS PVT LTD                           ..... Respondent
                   Through: None.

                                        WITH

+                      CRIMINAL L.P. No.600 of 2011

POLAR SECURITY & FINANCE PVT LTD       ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate.

                               versus

JAGDAMBAY BUILDERS PVT LTD                       ..... Respondent
                   Through: None.

                                        WITH

+                      CRIMINAL L.P. No.601 of 2011

POLAR SECURITY & FINANCE PVT LTD    ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate.

                               Versus

SANJEEV CHANNA                                  ..... Respondent
                               Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI



Crl. L.P. Nos.599, 600, 601/2011                                    Page 1 of 8
 V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. No.19792/2011 (for delay) in Crl. L.P. No.599/2011 Crl. M.A. No.19809/2011 (for delay) in Crl. L.P. No.600/2011 Crl. M.A. No.19811/2011 (for delay) in Crl. L.P. No.601/2011

1. The aforesaid three leave to appeal petitions are filed

against the impugned order dated 3.11.2010 and 15.2.2011

by virtue of which the learned trial court had dismissed the

complaint of the petitioner/complainant in default on account

of non-appearance of the complainant and also for non-

prosecution.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the

petitioner/complainant is claiming itself to be a company

registered under Companies Act, 1956 and one Pramod Mishra

was appointed as an authorized representative to file the

complaint vide Resolution dated 29.5.2009. On account of

three separate cheques having been dishonoured, which were

purportedly issued by the respondents, three separate

complaints were filed. These cheques were for an amount of

Rs.29 lacs, Rs.12 lacs and Rs.36 lacs. It was alleged in the

complaint that these cheques were issued by the respondent-

company to the petitioner/complainant in discharge of its legal

liability but as they were dishonoured, after compliance with

the statutory provision of serving a demand notice, action by

way of three complaints was initiated. All these three

complaints have been dismissed vide impugned order.

3. The present three leave to appeal petitions have been

filed along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act seeking condonation of 345 days' delay in filing the

Criminal L.P. Nos.599 and 600 of 2011 and 240 days' delay in

filing the Criminal L.P. No.601 of 2011. The reasons given for

the delay in filing the leave to appeal, as stated in the

application, are that in the month of April, 2011, there arose

some dispute between the authorized representative and the

company as a consequence of which, the authorized

representative left the company and he did not inform the

status of the cases. The petitioner/complainant appointed a

new authorized representative, who appeared in some other

case than these three cases against the accused persons in

Dwarka courts on 1.12.2011. The accused is alleged to have

filed an application seeking cancellation of the proclamation

purported to have been issued against him under Section 82

Cr.P.C. where allegedly the accused/respondent purportedly

made a wrong statement that the three other cases have been

compromised with the petitioner. It is stated that this was a

wrong statement and upon checking, it was found that these

three complaints, in respect of which the present leave to

appeal petitions have been filed, were actually dismissed for

non-prosecution. It is stated that this was the reason that

there was a delay in filing the leave to appeal petitions.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel and have gone through the record and the applications

seeking condonation of delay. There is no dispute about the

fact that law regarding condonation of delay in filing the

appeal has been diluted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with

the passage of time starting from the case of Ramlal, Motilal

And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd.; 1962 SCR (3) 762 to

the latest trend so as to hold that each day's delay is not to be

explained by the party seeking condonation of delay but he

has to give some cogent, convincing and pragmatic reasons for

non-appearance and further the bona fides of the party have

to be seen. It has also been held that quantum of delay may

not be relevant in such cases.

5. Keeping in view these broad parameters, a pragmatic

approach has to be taken. In the instant case, the bona fides

of the explanation given by the petitioner/complainant itself

seems to be suspicious. The complaints have been admittedly

dismissed on 3.11.2010 and 15.2.2011 by the learned

Magistrate despite keeping it pending till 4 p.m. when nobody

cared to appear. The petitioner/complainant says that dispute

between the company and the authorized representative arose

only in the month of April, 2011. If that be so, it could well be

presumed that the authorized representative himself had

recorded the date as 3.11.2010 correctly or he would have

checked the date immediately thereafter, which does not seem

to have been done.

6. In addition to this, the petitioner- company cannot thrust

everything on to authorized representative. The authorized

representative was appointed only for the purpose of filing the

complaint and following it up. It was essentially for the

Secretary of the company or the legal department or the

Managing Director to have obtained the report regarding the

progress of the complaint cases filed by them. It is

unacceptable and unbelievable that after appointing the

authorized representative, the company is not interested to

find out as to what has happened to its cases. If it does not do

so, then obviously it is grossly negligent which cannot be said

to be constituting sufficient cause. Further, the explanation

which has been given by the petitioner/complainant is that

they learnt about the dismissal of the complaint only through

another case between them and the accused, where the

accused approached Dwarka District Court for cancellation of

proclamation. It is very strange that a company which is filing

cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

that too of huge amount of Rs.29 lacs, 12 lacs and so, would

not follow it up and if they do not do it, they do so at their own

peril. It has been noticed in Delhi courts that there are nearly

seven lacs cases as on date which are pending adjudication in

the courts of Magistrates. This is only on account of the fact

that the companies like the petitioner's company, after filing

the complaints, feel their job has been done and do not follow

it up effectively, as a consequence of which, every day

pendency of these cases keeps on piling up.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I feel that in the

instant case also, the petitioner/complainant, after filing of the

complaint against the respondent had been grossly negligent

in not following it up timely and if they were so, it cannot be

said to be constituting a sufficient cause which can be

condoned.

8. Accordingly, I feel that in these leave to appeal petitions,

the petitioners have not been able to show 'sufficient cause'

for condonation of delay. Accordingly the applications seeking

condonation of delay are dismissed. Since the applications for

condonation of delay itself has been dismissed, therefore,

leave to appeal petitions also stands dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JULY 11, 2012 'AA'