Times Business Solutions Ltd v. Naveen Kumar

l 26&28 %

2.0.09.2010 Prcsent: Mr. V.K. Shailendla for the petitioner. CRL. ltEV.P. Nos.584i2010 & 586/2010 1 . 'l'hesc revision petitions are directed against the order datcd 18tl' Moy, 2010 refusing to take cogniz,ance and summon the accuscd in complaints filed under Section 138 bf thc Ncgotiable Instrumcnt Act, 188l(Act, for short). Ily the impugncd order clatcd l8tl'May,2010, thc lcarncd trial court has disrnisscd the complaints, intel alia, holding that no proof of dolivery of notice undcr Section 1 3 8(b) of the Act has been placed on lccord.

¶2L,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had Iilcd postal rcceipts issued by post office for sending noticcs un<Jcr Section 138 proviso r:lause (b) of the Act. FIe relies upon the several judgrnents o{'tlre Supremc Court including V.Raja Kumari Vs. p.Subborflnta Naidu and Anotlter, Q004) S SCC 774 and D. vittotl shivappa vs. Nanda Bellitppa, (2006) 6 Seg_456. I-Ie relies upon the ]lvidence Act and rhe (icneral clzruses Act. My atlention is drarvn to the ordcr datccl 3''l May, 2010, which rccords that arguments wore heard on thc point of tenitorial jtrrisdi<;tion and the casc rvas adjourned for ordcrs on l5tl'Moy, 2010. on 15tr' May, 2010, ordcrs were not passed and the case was adjognecl to l Stl' Muy, 2010. As noticed above, the irnpugnecl or.der was passod on lgtl' Moy, 2010.In thu irnpugned order, it was noticcd ancl obscrued by the rrial cottt't that the question o1:territorial jurisdiction was not being exarnincd in vierv of'tho lact that the complaint was being disrnissed on the ground tlrat thcro was no proof of delivcry/seryice of notice issucd under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of'the Act.

¶3In vicw of the afbresaid position, thc impugned order datcd l gtl' I r' \,, e Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. May, 2010 is hereby ,.rf,"*f.*" rnatter is remanded back to lr thc lcarncd trial court for h'csh hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rcly upon judgments citcd before me before the trial court. It is clarified that this Court has not expresscd any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an ordcr without being influcnced with the obscrvations made in this ordcr.

¶4Thc pctitioncr will appear beforc the trial court on 4tl' October, 20tti. / Thc pctitions arc accordingly disposcd of. e /- L SANJIV KUANNA..T. SEI'TIIMI}ER 20,2OIO VKII- ,1 C