Delhi High Court
M/S Hubli Pipe Corporation & Anr. vs M/S Vrindavan Tubes Ltd. on 25 May, 2015
I-44 & 63 to 65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 25, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2244/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7921/2015
M/S HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K.Somkiya, advocate
versus
M/S VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
+ CRL.M.C. 2285/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.8010/2015
M/S HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K.Somkiya, advocate
versus
M/S VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
+ CRL.M.C. 2286/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.8012/2015
M/S HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K.Somkiya, advocate
versus
M/S VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
+ CRL.M.C. 2287/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.8013/2015
M/S HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Crl.M.C.No.2244/2015 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.2285/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2286/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2287/2015
Through: Mr. R.K.Somkiya, advocate
versus
M/S VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned four petitions, challenge is to the impugned
summoning order in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. These four petitions were heard together and are
disposed of by this common order.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that now
the case is coming up before the trial court on 1st June, 2015 for recording
of petitioner's evidence.
Since proceedings in the complaints in question are at the fag end
before the trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings arising out of complaints in question. It is being so
said because petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge
the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy Alias Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy &
Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437, are as under: -
Crl.M.C.No.2244/2015 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.2285/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2286/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2287/2015
"13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under
Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is
available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific
remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is
inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code
(vide Kavita v. State and B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana). If an
effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will
not exercise its powers under this section, specifically when
the applicant may not have availed of that remedy."
Applying the dictum of above-cited decision of Apex Court to the
facts of these cases, this Court finds that since petitioners have an
alternate and efficacious remedy available, therefore, these petitions and
applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise the pleas
taken herein before the trial court at the final stage.
Needless to say that this Court has not considered the case of the
parties on merits and it is left open for the trial court to do so.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.2244/2015 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.2285/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2286/2015
Crl.M.C.No.2287/2015
