Delhi High Court
The National Small Industries ... vs Shakuntala Goswami & Ors on 15 March, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.03.2012
+ CRL.L.P. 101/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 102/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
KHEY BANERJEE ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 103/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Crl.L.Ps. 101-109/2012 Page 1 of 7
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 104/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 105/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 106/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD .... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
Crl.L.Ps. 101-109/2012 Page 2 of 7
With
+ CRL.L.P. 107/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
With
+ CRL.L.P. 108/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
And
+ CRL.L.P. 109/2012
THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivnath Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. M.P.Singh, Advocate.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through:
Crl.L.Ps. 101-109/2012 Page 3 of 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this common order, the nine connected matters are being disposed
of. In all these matters, applications are filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking leave to appeal against the orders dated
27.04.2010 passed by the Court of Ld. M.M. in the Complaints, which were
filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short the 'Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complaints were filed by the petitioner
against the respondent no. 1 in the year 2004, due to the dishonor of 10 cheques
issued in discharge of its contractual liability, and summons were issued to the
respondents in the year 2005 and 2006. The events that unfolded after the
issuance of summons against the respondents paint a sordid picture of the
affairs in the legal department of the petitioner company. On 15.03.2010 fresh
summons were issued against the accused, but neither the petitioner nor the
main counsel of the petitioner was present on that date and it is contended that
the proxy counsel did not inform the main counsel about the proceedings.
Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and has taken up
the plea that it was told by its counsel that their presence is not required in the
Court. It was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the above cases were
pending in the Patiala House Court and thereafter were transferred to Dwarka
Courts due to the bifurcation of the Courts, and the petitioner had no panel of
Advocates at Dwarka Courts to handle the cases. The cases were transferred to
an Advocate at Dwarka Courts on 15.12.2009. It is stated that the Advocate
engaged by the petitioner did not inform them about the status of the cases
despite several requests made. It is further submitted that another counsel was
engaged by the petitioner, but there was some dispute regarding payment of
fees to him and he did not proceed further in the cases on petitioner's directions.
3. Next submission of the counsel for the petitioner was that in December 2011,
the AR of the petitioner Corporation was transferred and the person substituted
in his place made several attempts to know the status of the cases, but failed to
do so. Even on the date of passing of the impugned orders, neither the
petitioner nor his counsel was present in the court which finally led to the
dismissal of the cases in default and for non prosecution of the respondents,
resulting in acquittal of respondents.
4. The present petitions and the applications for condonation of delay have been
filed after the lapse of 620 days in few petitions and 796 days in other petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced reasons such as absence of
their main counsel on the date fixed in the trial court, not giving of intimation
by the counsel engaged by the petitioner about the status of the cases, disputes
regarding fees payable to the counsel, transfer of the AR assigned to the cases
and lastly the bifurcation of the Patiala House Courts and absence of panel
advocates at the Dwarka Courts, for the inaction and delay on their part.
5. From the perusal of these petitions, the apathy of the Department in pursuing
these cases is palpable. The petitioner is a Govt. Corporation having a separate
legal department to handle its cases, but the lethargy in the department not only
prevails there, but is writ large on their manner of working. It is not only
surprising, but shocking to note that the complainant did not bother to appear
before the Court on numerous occasions and now the buck is fervently tried to
be passed on from one counsel to another, engaged by the petitioner. The
summons in the case were issued way back in 2005 and 2006, but the case
could not even reach to the initial stage of leading pre-summoning evidence due
to the apathetic attitude of the petitioner. The Patiala House Court was
bifurcated in 2009 and the impugned order was passed in the year 2010, but the
petitioner Corporation, who has a Legal Department at its disposal could not
engage any Advocate to conduct the matters during all this time.
6. There has not been a single instance where a case has been dismissed in default
due to the bifurcation of the Patiala House Court and work has been smoothly
carried out in all the Courts, regardless of any transition. This contention of the
counsel for the petitioner is absurd and totally unacceptable. A minor issue such
as dispute regarding fees which was to be payable to the counsel is being tried
to be raked for covering up such serious and continued lapses on the part of the
petitioner. In the given circumstances, the trial Court was constrained to dismiss
the cases for non prosecution. This indifference on the part of the petitioner has
resulted in the loss of huge public money. The petitioner even did not mend its
ways after the dismissal of the complaint cases, which is apparent from the
delay in filing the present leave petitions and applications for condonation of
delay.
7. Giving too much latitude to such institutions, ignoring the unaccountable,
unjustified and unacceptable delay is one of the primary reasons for the
mounting arrears in the Courts. The petitioner must be held responsible for the
inaction and lack of co-ordination amongst its department and cannot be
allowed to wriggle out of its omissions. The flimsy grounds taken up by the
counsel for the petitioner are untenable.
8. The petitions being without any merit are hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 15, 2012
akb
