Times Business Solutions Ltd v. Falconic Career & Anr

21, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33-35, 37-39, 41, 44-51, 55, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66-69 %

20.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendrafor the petitioner. + CRL. REV.P. Nos. 579/2010, 581/2010, 582/2010. 588/2010. 589/2010. 591-593/2010. 595-597/2010. 599/2010, 602-609/2010. 613/2010.514/2010, 619/2010. 620/2010. 622/2010. 624-627/2710

¶1I hese revision petitionsare directed against the order dated 18"' May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstrumentAct, ^ p-1881(Act. for short). By the impugnedorder dated 18"' May, 2010, the learnedtrial court has dismissedthe complaints,interalia, holdingthat no proofofdeliveryofnoticeunderSection138(b)oftheActhas beenplaced on record.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filedpostal receipts issuedby post office forsendingnotices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. He relies upon the several judgments of the Supreme Court including V.Raja Kumari Vs. P.Suhharama Naidu and Another,

(2004) 8 SCC 774 and D.Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda Belliappa,

(2006) 6 SCC 456. He relies upon the Evidence Act and the (jcneral clausesAct. My attentionis drawn to the order dated r' May, T 2010 by which the court had adjournedthe case to 15"' May, 2010 for argumentson territorialjurisdiction. On 15"' May, 2010 itwas recorded that the order could not be dictatedand the case was adjournedto 18"' May, 2010 for orders. It is. therefore, apparent that there is an error in the order dated 15"' May, 2010 as arguments were to be addressed on territorial jurisdiction on the said date and the case was not fixed for orders. As noticedabove, the impugnedorder was passedon 18"' May, 2010. In the impugned order, it was noticed and observed by the trial court that the question of territorial jurisdiction was not being examined in view 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. T ofthe fact that the complaintwas beingdismissedon the groundthat there was no proof of deHvery/service of notice issued under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act.

¶3In view of the aforesaidposition,the impugnedorder dated iS"" May, 2010 is hereby set ^and the matter is remanded back to the learnedtrialcourt for fresh hearing. Petitionerwill be entitledto rely uponjudgments cited before me beforethe trial court. It is clarifiedthat this Court has not expressedany opinionon meritsandthe trial courtwill pass an order without being influencedwith the observationsmade in this order.

¶4The petitionerwill appear before the trial court on 4"" October, 2010. The petitionsare accordinglydisposedof. SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 VKR SANJIV KHANNA, J