Delhi District Court
Experio Tech Private Liminted vs Transline Technologies Ltd on 4 December, 2025
DLSE010045032025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR Rev No. 295/2025
1. EXPERIO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED
Shiv Sakti Apartment, Ground Floor
Village Bagdola, Opp. Community Centre
Sector-8 Dwarka, South West
New Delhi-110077
2. RAKESH YADAV
R/o Shiv Sakti Apartment, Ground Floor,
Village Bagdola, Opp. Community Centre
Sector-8 Dwarka, South West
New Delhi-110077
........Revisionists
Versus
TRANSLINE TECHNOLGIES LTD.
Through its Authorized Representative
23A, Shivaji Marg, 3rd Floor,
New Delhi 110015
............Respondent
CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 1/21
Date of institution : 03.05.2025
Date of Reserving judgment : 04.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed u/s 438 r/w 440 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-02, South-East District in CC No. 1520/2023 titled as Transline Technologies Vs. Experio Tech Private Limited. The said complaint was filed by respondent herein against the revisionist herein and some others U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. For the sake of convenience, the revisionists herein shall be referred to as 'the accused' and the respondent herein shall be referred to as 'the complainant'. Vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to allow the application moved by the complainant u/s 143A Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered the accused to pay interim compensation to the tune of Rs.7,98,700/- to the complainant.
Grounds of Revision
2. The grounds cited by the revisionist / accused are as under:
i Because the Ld. JMFC has erred in appreciating that the power vested under Section 143A of the NI Act CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 2/21 is discretionary. It is respectfully submitted that Subsection (1) of Section 143A of the NI Act uses the word "may" Therefore, the provision is discretionary.
ii Because the Ld. JMFC has erred in considering the factor that has to be considered while exercising this discretion. It is respectfully submitted that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable.
iii. Because the Ld. JMFC has failed to understand that the question of applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused person has financial distress can also be a consideration. Unfortunately, the Ld. JMFC did not consider the financial distress of the company/accused.
iv. Because the Ld. JMFC has failed to understand that the application under section 143A of the NI Act is premature as the trial is not commenced yet. If we assume that the presumption lies in favor of the complainant, the same is rebuttable. It is respectfully submitted if the outcome of the case comes in favor of the de facto complainant, same may also be entitled to CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 3/21 compensation along with the amount of the cheque in question. Thus, there is no requirement for any interim compensation in favor of the de facto complainant.
v. Because the MOU, which was allegedly claimed to have been executed between the de facto complainant and the accused company, the same was without authorization. The accused company [Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd.] has not authorized the erstwhile director, i.e., Niraj Kumar Gupta. it is respectfully submitted that the MOU was executed by the erstwhile director without proper authorization via Board Resolution or any Board Minutes. Thus, the liability against that MOU cannot be fastened upon the Accused company /Revisionist. vi. Because the JMFC has failed to appreciate the fact that de facto complainant has misused the cheque in question, as this cheque is the security cheque given by the accused person.
vii. Because the Ld. JMFC has failed to consider the broad parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors [MANU/SC/0204/2024] ***19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:
a. The exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 4/21 and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall."
b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.
c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion Under Section 143A are as follows: The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:
i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the Accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the Accused can also be a consideration. ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.
iii. If the defence of the Accused is found to be prima facie plausible. the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 5/21 interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the Accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated.
viii. Because the trial has not commenced yet, as the matter is at the stage of cross-examination of the complainant's witness, but the cross-examination has not started yet. Thus, it is too early to grant any compensation to the de facto complainant; the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 is against the law and facts of the case and basic and settled propositions of the law.
ix. Because the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises, and the same is against the valid and admitted principles of law as the Ld. JMFC has not considered the financial distress of the accused person as well as the defense taken by the accused person/revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist has categorically denied liability. In their reply to the legal notice, which was brought to the attention of the Ld. JMFC, the Revisionist had specifically stated that CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 6/21 the cheque in question was given as a security and was not issued in discharge of any existing liability. This crucial aspect was not given due consideration by the Ld. JMFC, while ordering interim compensation.
x. Because the Ld. JMFC has erred in overlooking the serious allegations of misuse of the cheque raised by the de facto complainant. The Revisionist has clearly stated that the cheque was not filled or signed by them and was misused by the Respondent/Complainant. These are serious allegations that go to the root of the matter and should have been considered more carefully before directing payment of interim compensation of 10%. xi. Because the Ld. JMFC was too quick to say that there is a case against revisionists and that revisionists owe a legally enforceable debt. This conclusion was made without giving proper reasons, even though the revisionist had clearly denied owing any money, even the cheque in question was misused by the de facto complainant as this cheque is the security cheque.
xii. Because the Ld. JMFC has not adequately considered the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court for granting interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act. As noted in the Impugned Order itself, the Hon'ble SC in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. The State of Jharkhand and another laid down certain parameters. It is respectfully submitted that the Ld. JMFC CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 7/21 has failed to demonstrate how these parameters are applicable to the present case, particularly in light of the misuse of the cheque in question. The Delhi High Court also passed orders regarding the parameters for granting interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act.
xiii. Because the JMFC has erred in stating that the defence of accused no. 1 and 2 was that the transaction was done only by accused No. 3 is of no avail. It is respectfully submitted that Ld. JMFC has not considered the defense taken by the revisionist that the cheque in question is a security cheque, and the same has been misused by the de facto complainant.
xiv. Because the respondent has cheated the revisionist by misusing the security cheque and significantly, the content of the cheque was filled by the respondent. It is respectfully submitted that the cheque in question was not issued by the revisionist to the respondent in discharge of any liability.
xv. Because the direction to pay interim compensation without a conclusive finding of guilt or proper consideration of the revisionist defense causes undue hardship and prejudice to the revisionist. The very purpose of a revision petition is to correct such errors and prevent injustice.
CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 8/21
3. It is prayed in the petition by the accused that the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 may be set aside.
Submissions of Complainant
4. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the Ld. Magistrate has correctly passed the impugned order as a prima facie case has been made out against the accused from the documents placed on record by it (complainant). It is further submitted that the accused has been deliberately delaying the disposal of the matter on merits, which entitles the complainant for grant of interim relief. It is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
DISCUSSION Law Governing The Issue
5. Before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision made U/s 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act for a better understanding of the issue. The relevant provision is reproduced herein below:
"Section 143-A: Power to direct interim compensation.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant--
(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and
(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque.
(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 9/21 days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.
(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
(5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section."
6. In JSB CARGO and Freight forwarder (P) Ltd vs State 2021 SCC Online Del 5425 at para no. 62, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the said provision under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act is directory and not mandatory. In Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs. Laxmikant Govind Joshi Crl. (Writ Petition No. 48/2022) date of decision 07.07.2022, the same issue was dealt with by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and it was held that the provision u/s. 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act is directory and not mandatory. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, speaking through Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 309, has also ruled that the exercise of power u/s 143A(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act is discretionary and that the provision is directory and not CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 10/21 mandatory in nature.
7. Here it would be appropriate to reproduce the principles laid down w.r.t. exercise of jurisdiction u/s 143A Negotiable Instruments Act regard in L.G.R. Enterprises & Ors. Vs. P. Anbazhagan 2019 SSC online Madras 38991. The relevant extract is as under:
"8. Therefore, whenever the trial Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section143A(1) of the Act, it shall record reasons as to why it directs the accused person (drawer of the cheque) to pay the interim compensation to the complainant. The reasons may be varied. For instance,
- the accused person would have absconded for a longtime and thereby would have protracted the proceedings or
- the accused person would have intentionally evaded service for a long time and only after repeated attempts, appears before the Court, or
- the enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming materials which the accused person could not on the face of it deny or
- where the accused person accepts the debt or liability partly or
- where the accused person does not cross examine the witnesses and keeps on dragging with the proceedings by filing one petition after another or
- the accused person absonds and by virtue of a non-bailable warrant he is secured and brought before the Court after a long time or
- he files a recall non-bailable warrant petition after a long time and the Court while considering his petition for recalling the non-bailable warrant can invoke Section 143A(1) of the Act. This list is not exhaustive and it is more illustrative as to the various circumstances under which the trial Court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 143A(1) of the Act, by directing the accused person to pay the interim compensation of 20% to the complainant."
8. We may also note observations made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashwin Ashokrao (Supra) which are to the effect that grant CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 11/21 of interim compensation, would be at the discretion of the Court, based upon consideration of various factors, such as (a) Whether the requirement of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were fulfilled, (b) Whether the pleadings disclosed the drawing of presumption (c) Whether proceedings were within limitation and (d) Whether prima facie a legal debt or liability was disclosed from the complaint or the notice of demand preceding it, and factors as such.
9. In Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also laid down the broad parameters for exercising jurisdiction u/s 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act. The same are as under:-
i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.
ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.
iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 12/21 such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.
FACTS OF THE CASE
10. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein is a company dealing with electronic items, biometric equipment etc. etc. As per complainant, the accused as well as the other Directors of Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. entered into an MOU dated 03.09.2021 with the complainant, in pursuance of which Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. placed several purchase orders worth Rs. 5.35 crores approx. upon the complainant. Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. also obtained financial assistance from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 21 lakh approx. Certain part payments were made by Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant to clear the said liability but a sum of Rs.3.88 crores approx. is still outstanding. In order to clear a part of the outstanding debt, Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. issued the cheque in question worth Rs.79,87,008/- in favour of the complainant with an assurance that the same shall be encashed upon presentation. However, the cheque in question was dishonoured when presented by the complainant. Hence, the complainant preferred the above said complaint against the accused as well as other Directors of Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd.
11. The accused as well as the other Director of Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. filed separate replies to the application moved by the complainant u/s 143A NI Act. After considering the records, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to allow the said application moved by complainant vide the impugned order CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 13/21 dated 10.03.2025 while observing as under:-
"9. A perusal of purchase order dated 08/09/2021 reveals that an order worth Rs.79,87,008 was placed at the instance of the accused company Experia Tech. The cheque in question in the instant case is with respect to the same amount of the purchase order.
10. The accused persons in their statement of admission and denial of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C admitted the five invoices raised by the complainant.
11. The cheque in question along with the amount in figures was filled by accused no. 3. It is the case of accused no.3 that, while he was in the accused company, they had purchased material from the complainant against which the cheque in question was issued. Accused no.3 is stated to have left the company on 31/03/2022.
12. The defence of accused no. 1 and 2 to the extent that the instant transaction in question was done only by accused no.3 is of no avail. The actions attributed to accused no.3 were done by him in the capacity of being a director of the accused company and not in his personal capacity. The fact is further buttressed by the purchase orders, which are in the name of the accused company and not in the name of accused no.3, in his personal capacity.
13. In the instant case at hand, a rebuttable presumption of law has arisen in light of execution of the cheque in question. In addition to the rebuttable presumption of law, a prima facie case with regards to existence of a legally enforceable CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 14/21 debt has been established by the complainant. The plausibility of the defence made by the accused at this stage is not enough to disallow the application moved by the complainant.
14. Accordingly, this court is inclined to grant interim compensation to the limited extent of 10% of the cheque amount.
15. Thus, the accused is directed to pay interim compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 7,98,700 i.e. 10% of the cheques amount (Rs. 79,87,008/-) within 60 days from today. The complainant is entitled to get the interim compensation within 60 days, subject to the filing of an indemnity bond, stipulating that if the accused is acquitted then he shall be liable to indemnify the accused, the amount which has been awarded as interim compensation alongwith interest at the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year as published by the Reserve Bank of India.
16. In the event of any default on the part of accused to pay the amount, the complainant is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as provided under Section 143- A (5) of the NI Act.
17. The application is allowed and is disposed off accordingly.
DECISION
12. Having gone through the TCR, this Court observes that at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. the accused as well as the other CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 15/21 Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta of Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. categorically admit that the complainant and Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. were maintaining a business relationship, in pursuance of which Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. used to purchase materials from the complainant. In fact, all the above said persons have categorically admitted the 05 invoices issued by the complainant. While the accused stated that they could neither deny nor admit the purchase order, the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta categorically admitted the MOU as well as the purchase order. It seems that the purchase order has been denied halfheartedly by the accused. As such, the said denial does not carry much value in the eyes of law. The other variation between the respective pleas of the accused and the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta of Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. is that while the accused inter alia claimed that materials worth Rs.2.51 crores were returned to the complainant; the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta clearly admits that 'materials' were purchased from the complainant, against which the cheque in question was issued. That apart, the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta stated that the said materials were also used by them. It would be appropriate to observe here that the accused has not placed any document on record which corroborates their claim as to the return of materials worth Rs. 2.51 crores to the complainant. Given the categorical admissions made by the accused as well as the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta, as also the above noted discrepancies in the defence raised by the accused, this Court finds it appropriate to observe here that prima facie the accused as well as the other Director namely Neeraj Kumar Gupta have admitted the entire case set up against them by the complainant. That being so, on merits, this Court does not find any reason to upset the findings rendered by the Ld Magistrate in the impugned CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 16/21 order vis-a-vis the aspect of existence of legally enforceable debt. However, at the same time, this Court also finds it appropriate to refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT LTD VS PRITHIVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH SLP CRL 8849-8850/2023 decided on 24.07.2024. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below for ready reference:-
"28. The High Court's interpretation of Section 7 of the NI Act accurately identified the "drawer" as the individual who issues the cheque. This interpretation is fundamental to understanding the obligations and liabilities under Section 138 of the NI Act, which makes it clear that the drawer must ensure sufficient funds in their account at the time the cheque is presented. The appellants' argument that directors or other individuals should also be liable under Section 143A misinterprets the statutory language and intent. The primary liability, as correctly observed by the High Court, rests on the drawer, emphasizing the drawer's responsibility for maintaining sufficient funds.
29. The general rule against vicarious liability in criminal law underscores that individuals are not typically held criminally liable for acts committed by others unless specific statutory provisions extend such liability. Section 141 of the NI Act is one such provision, extending liability to the company's officers for the CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 17/21 dishonour of a cheque. The appellants' attempt to extend this principle to Section 143A, to hold directors or other individuals personally liable for interim compensation, is unfounded. The High Court rightly emphasized that liability under Section 141 arises from the conduct or omission of the individual involved, not merely their position within the company.
30. The distinction between legal entities and individuals acting as authorized signatories is crucial. Authorized signatories act on behalf of the company but do not assume the company's legal identity. This principle, fundamental to corporate law, ensures that while authorized signatories can bind the company through their actions, they do not merge their legal status with that of the company. This distinction supports the High Court's interpretation that the drawer under Section 143A refers specifically to the issuer of the cheque, not the authorized signatories.
31. The principle of statutory interpretation, particularly in relation to Sections 143A and 148, was also correctly applied by the High Court. The Court emphasized that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its natural and ordinary meaning. The legislative intent, as discerned from the plain language of the statute, aims to hold the drawer CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 18/21 accountable. The appellants' argument for a broader interpretation to include authorized signatories under Section 143A contradicts this principle and would lead to an unjust extension of liability not supported by the statutory text.
32. The High Court's reliance on established legal precedents further reinforces its interpretation. Judicial precedents relied upon in the impugned judgment underscore the need for a literal interpretation of the statutory provisions. These precedents support the High Court's decision to limit the definition of 'drawer' to the issuer of the cheque, excluding authorized signatories.
33. The appellants' reliance on the judgment in Aneeta Hada (Supra), 11 is misplaced and out of context. While this case underscored the necessity of involving the company as an accused to maintain a prosecution under Section 141, it does not support the extension of liability to authorized signatories under Section 143A. The judgment nowhere lays down that directors or authorised signatories would come under the ambit of 'drawer' for the purposes of Section 143A. The appellants' interpretation conflates the roles of authorized signatories and drawers, which are distinct under the NI Act. Appellants have relied upon a single paragraph, which does not form part of the ratio therein, to CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 19/21 substantiate their argument. But in this relied upon paragraph, the Court only made an observation that the authorised signatory becomes a drawer for the company, for the limited purpose of extending the criminal liability as per Section 141.
34. The respondents correctly argued that an authorized signatory is not a drawer of the cheque, as established in N. Harihara Krishnan (Supra). 12 This judgment clarified that a signatory is merely authorized to sign on behalf of the company and does not become the drawer. The respondents' interpretation aligns with the principle that penal statutes should be interpreted strictly, particularly in determining vicarious liability. The judgment in K.K. Ahuja (Supra), 13 further supports this approach, emphasizing that penal provisions must be read strictly to determine liability.
35. In conclusion, the High Court's decision to interpret 'drawer' strictly as the issuer of the cheque, excluding authorized signatories, is well-founded. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent, established legal precedents, and principles of statutory interpretation. The primary liability for an offence under Section 138 lies with the company, and the company's management is vicariously liable only under specific conditions provided in Section 141. The appellants' CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 20/21 submissions are thus rejected, and the High Court's judgment is upheld. This decision maintains the clarity and consistency of the law regarding cheque dishonour cases, ensuring that liability is appropriately assigned to the responsible parties under the NI Act. Therefore, the question of law put before this Court is answered in the negative.
36. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
13. In view of the above observations, the impugned order could not be sustained against revisionist Rakesh Yadav. As such, the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 is hereby set aside qua revisionist Rakesh Yadav only. The impugned order is affirmed qua revisionist Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of.
14. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
15. Revision file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Dictated and Announced in open Court on 04.12.2025 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East) Saket Courts, Delhi CR Rev No. 295/2025 Experio Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs Transline Technologies Ltd. 21/21