High Court of Delhi has refused to restore a complaint of cheque bounce when it found that complainant was only ba=laming the counsel. Case is titled as M/S BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs M/S RAJWANT SINGH & ORS. decided on 07.11.2019.
High Court observed and held as under:
"The petitioner has filed the present batch of petitions seeking leave to appeal against separate orders dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned MM, whereby the complaints filed by the petitioner, for dishonouring of cheques stated to have been issued by respondent no.1, were rejected.
It is seen that these complaints were rejected for the reason that none had been appearing on behalf of the petitioner for several dates.
It is not disputed that the complaints had been listed on several occasions but the petitioner remained unrepresented. On some occasions, the matter was adjourned as the counsel for the accused had submitted that the parties were attempting to compromise the matter. On one of the dates, it was also submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise.
xxxxx
The only explanation provided by the petitioner is that its counsel had misled the petitioner into believing that the matters were being adjourned on account of the efforts of the parties to compromise the said complaints.
Considering that it is not disputed that neither the authorized representative of the petitioner nor its counsel had appeared on several dates, this Court is unable to fault the orders impugned in this petition. The contention that the petitioner’s counsel was solely responsible for nonrepresentation is also unpersuasive. Concededly, it was also necessary for the petitioner’s authorized representative to be present at the hearings. The orders passed by the Courts are now readily available online and the failure on the part of the petitioner’s counsel to appear does not absolve the petitioner of its responsibility for ensuring that its complaint is diligently prosecuted".
Read the Order here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
