Delhi High Court
M/S S D International vs M/S D D Syenthetic (P) Ltd & Anr on 29 February, 2016
#21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.02.2016
CRL.L.P. 31/2015
M/S S D INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
versus
M/S D D SYENTHETIC (P) LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Singhai, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present leave petition assails the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi in CC No.4431/1
titled as "M/s. S.D. International vs. Sumit Seth & Anr." under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 whereby the said complaint
instituted on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as
well as non-appearance.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the leave petitioner states that
on account of the circumstance that he inadvertently recorded the next date
of hearing in the said CC No.4431/1 incorrectly, they were unable to appear
before the concerned Magistrate on the day when the matter was dismissed
for non-prosecution.
3. In view of the foregoing, in my view, the present petition seeking
leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. The leave petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
CRL.A. /2016 (To Be Numbered)
6. After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as
respondent No.1, the present appeal is being disposed of by way of this
order.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, who also
represented the leave petitioner before the concerned Magistrate, has already
explained the reason for the non-appearance of the appellant as well as his
counsel before the concerned Magistrate on the date when the CC No.4431/1
came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
8. In my view, sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the appellant
for their non-appearance before the concerned Magistrate on the relevant
day. The inadvertent mistake made by the appellant was neither intentional
nor deliberate.
9. In the present appeal, it is observed that the CC No.4431/1 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was dismissed for non-
prosecution and has not been heard and adjudicated on merits.
10. In view of the said circumstances, in my opinion an opportunity has to
be granted to the appellant/complainant to prosecute the complaint before the
Magistrate on merits.
11. The present appeal is consequently allowed. The impugned order
dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC
No.4431/1 titled as "M/s. S.D. International vs. Sumit Seth & Anr." is
restored to its original number and remanded back to the Court of the
concerned Magistrate subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand Only) as costs to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks
from today.
12. List the matter before the concerned Magistrate on 14.03.2016 for
hearing and adjudication of the above mentioned complaint in accordance
with law.
13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magistrate for necessary
compliance.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
dn
