Delhi District Court
Tulsiani Constructions And Developers ... vs Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr on 16 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 227/2021 (RBT 02/2022)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at:
Plot No. 3, Block-N, Green Park (Main),
New Delhi - 110016
Also at:
Corporate Office 37, Elgin Road,
(Opp. Hotel Ajay International), Civil Lines,
Allahabad-211001 (U.P)
2. Mr. Mahesh Tulsiani
Wholetime Director
Residential Address: 13/1,
Alopibagh, Punjabi Colony,
Allahabad - 211006 (U.P)
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Tulsiani
Managing Director
Residential Address: 13/1,
Alopibagh, Punjabi Colony,
Allahabad - 211006 (U.P)
........ Revisionists
Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 1/ 16
& Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:33:41
+0530
Versus
1. Sh. Krishan Kumar Batra
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal Batra,
R/o Flat No. 3043-SD,
Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
2. Sh. Sunil Yadav,
Residential Address:122, Chak Niratul,
Allahabad - 211016 (U.P)
3. Sh. Satish Kumar Tripathi
CFO (KMP)
Residential Address:3/437,
Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow - 226010 (U.P)
....... Respondents
Instituted on : 03.12.2021
Reserved on : 14.02.2023
Pronounced on :16.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present revision petition preferred by M/s Tulsiani Constructions and Developers Ltd. & Ors. against the order dated 26.11.2021 of Ld. MM-04/NI Act/Saket/South/Delhi whereby their request for an opportunity to file a Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 2/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:33:49
+0530
reply to application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of respondent no.1(hereinafter referred to as respondent) alongwith another request for review of certain orders and recall of warrants of attachment was declined.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
The respondent herein has filed a complaint case U/s 138 NI Act against the revisionists on 19.02.2018. As per the complaint, the revisionist no.1 is a company incorporated under the companies Act 1956 whereas revisionist no.2 is its whole time Director and revisionist no.3 is its Managing Director. They had approached the respondent to make investment in lieu of certain real estate projects by them. They represented that said investments would fetch handsome returns. On this, an agreement dated 16.01.2017 was entered into between them whereby respondent had purchased two flats in the Group Housing Project with unconditional guarantee from revisionist company to buyback the alloted units within 24 months from the date of agreement and pre-determined amount shall be paid by them. On this, he invested a sum of Rs. 1,36,77,080/- in the name of Tulsiani Golf view Apartments. As per the agreement between them and to discharge their liability, a cheque bearing no. 000855 amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- dated 01.01.2018 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Goerge Town, Allahabad - 211002 as partial payment of the buy-back as per agreement dated 16.01.2017 was issued to him. When same was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 02.01.2018. A legal demand notice dated 24.01.2018 was sent on his Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 3/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:33:57
+0530
behalf through registered post on 25.01.2018 but despite service no payment was made. During the course of proceedings, Ld. MM took cognizance. The matter alongwith four other connected matters was ultimately settled between the parties by Mediation Settlement dated 07.05.2018 as per which, a sum of Rs. 1,36,77,080/- was to be paid by the revisionists to respondent. After payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, no further payment was made on behalf of revisionists. During the course of further proceedings, matter came up before Ld. Trial Court on 26.11.2021, wherein Ld. Counsel for revisionists sought an opportunity to file a reply to application U/s 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of respondent in accordance with "Dayawati Vs Yogesh Kumar Gosain Crl. Reference No. 1/16" by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. That request was declined. Another request was made to review the earlier orders of Ld. Trial Court dated 29.09.2018, 14.11.2018, 19.01.2019, 04.02.2019, 31.07.2019, 02.12.2019 and 07.02.2020 and to recall issuance of warrants of attachment against them. Said request was also not allowed. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has challenged the impugned order on 2 grounds:-
(i) The impugned order has been passed in violation of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain Cr. Reference No. 1/2016.
(ii) The impugned order has been obtained by respondent herein by playing fraud upon Court.Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 4/ 16
& Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:34:05
+0530
4. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the matter was admittedly settled between the parties before Mediation Center on 07.05.2018 and there is no dispute to this fact. However, he has submitted that such a settlement alone will not empower Ld. Trial Court to issue warrants of attachment against the revisionists in case of their inability to honour the settlement. It was submitted that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of Dayawati (Supra) has laid down specific directions which are to be followed by Ld. Trial Courts in such cases. Admittedly, the statement of parties after the matter was settled before Mediation Centre was not recorded before Ld. Trial Court. It was submitted in the absence of such statement, Ld. Trial Court could not have taken recourse to application 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C as there is no such provision in law to do so. He has also argued that the impugned order has been obtained by the respondent herein by playing fraud upon the Court. It was stated that the agreement dated 16.01.2017 between the parties which has been relied upon by the respondent to justify his case does not mention anything about the consideration amount paid by him to the revisionists. It was also argued that one receipt dated 26.10.2013 by the respondent to show that the payment of Rs. 1,36,77,080/- was made to the revisionists but same has not been made through proper banking channels and it appears that same was made in cash and apparently, was received by one Mr. Sunil Yadav on behalf of revisionist company against whom criminal complaint has been filed. It was also argued that in the absence of any document to show that entire payment was made by respondent to the revisionists there was no liability of the revisionists towards respondent. He has prayed for setting aside the Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 5/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:34:14
+0530
impugned order and remanding back the matter to Ld. Trial Court so that they can argue on the application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon following judgments:-
(1) Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, Crl. Ref. No. 1/2016. (2) Rajkumar Kuchhal Vs. Asian Cargo Movers & Anr Crl. M.C. 2827/2019.
(3) Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Tripurari Mani Tripathi Crl. M.C. 625/2019 (4) Sushila Badola Vs. Tushar Patni & Anr. CS (OS) 113/2016. (5) Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari Cr. Revision No. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent has submitted that there is no dispute to the factum of settlement between the parties before Mediation Center on 07.05.2018 so, non recording of statement of parties by Ld. Trial Court will not make settlement unenforceable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Dayawati (Supra). It has been submitted that the revisionists are just wasting time and delaying the proceedings. It was argued that recording of statement of the parties before Ld. Trial Court was a ministerial act and the absence of the same would not in any way affect the sanctity of the mediation settlement. He has argued that there is no allegation that mediation settlement was entered into by the revisionists involuntarily or under force or coercion. It was also argued that no fraud has been played by him on Court rather its the revisionists who are playing fraud with the system as despite having entered into settlement, they have paid only Rs.
Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 6/ 16& Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:34:23
+0530
5,00,000/- till today. He has referred to paragraph 18 of the revision petition and has stated that the revisionists have clearly admitted their liability therein and same itself is sufficient to show that there was no fraud on the part of the respondent. Lastly, he has argued that the order in question is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged by way of revision U/s 397 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as V.C. Shukla Vs. State Through C.B.I Crl. Appeal No. 562/1979.
6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith case file and judgments cited.
At first, this court will decide the maintainability of present revision petition against the impugned order. As per section 397(2) Cr.P.C., the power of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. For deciding the issue as to whether impugned order is interlocutory or not, it will be appropriate to reproduce the impugned order which has been done below for ready reference:-
"Proceedings are being conducted through hybrid manner vide circular no. Juld. II.F.7/South/ Saket/ 2021/ 19111-19161.
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Counsel for accused.
Counsel for accused seeks an opportunity to file a reply to application U/s 431 r/w 421 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of complainant in accordance with "Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain" Crl. Reference No. 1/2016 decided on 17.10.2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 7/ 16
& Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:34:32
+0530
This Court is of the considered view that since the said application has already been decided VOD- 29.09.2018 by Ld. Predecessor, no purpose will be served by allowing the counsel to file the reply on behalf of accused now.
Counsel for accused submits that the Court may review its orders dt. 29.09.2018, 14.11.2018, 19.01.2019, 04.02.2019, 31.07.2019, 02.12.2019,
07.02.2020 and recall issuance of warrants if attachment against the accused. It is the settled law that criminal courts do not have the powers of review and cannot recall their own orders. As such, the request of counsel for accused cannot be allowed.
Proxy counsel for complainant submits that main counsel is not available and requests that matter may be fixed for clarifications.
As per report of Ahlmad, NBW issued against the accused VOD - 01.10.2021 could not be executed as inadvertently wrong date i.e., 16.11.2022 of hearing was mentioned on the NBW, Ahlmad is directed to be careful in future.
Since accused persons have not appeared and no reason has been given for their non-appearance, issue fresh NBW against the accused persons to be executed through DCP concerned, returnable for 06.12.2021."
7. Perusal of above reveals that two specific requests were made by Ld. Counsel for revisionists before Ld. Trial Court on that day:-
(i) For an opportunity to file reply to application U/s 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of respondent/complainant.
(ii) For reviewing the earlier orders dated 29.09.2018, 14.11.2018, 19.01.2019, 04.02.2019, 31.07.2019, 02.12.2019 and 07.02.2020 alongwith request to recall issuance of warrants of attachment.Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 8/ 16
& Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:34:39
+0530
8. In a way, both the requests were to reopen the issues already decided by Ld. Trial Court without any supporting legal provision or judgment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 has observed that the interlocutory order means orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important right or the liabilities of the parties and any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and further observed that orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for a report and such other steps in aid of pending proceedings, may no doubt, amount to interlocutory orders, against which no revision would lie but orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial, cannot said to be interlocutory order. By applying the said yardstick, it is clear that no substantive order was passed by Ld. Trial Cort by way of impugned order and same was merely an interlocutory order. Hence, present revision petition is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. Even otherwise, record reveals that after settlement of matter [alongwith four other connected cases] before Mediation Centre on 07.05.2018, matter was put up for payment of cost and furnishing of bonds on 20.07.2018 vide order dated 08.05.2018 of Ld. Trial Court. On 20.07.2018, it was informed by the respondent that he has received total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- till then and the payment for the month of June 2018 given by way of post dated cheque has not been released due to Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 9/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:34:48
+0530
dishonour of said cheque. It came on record on behalf of revisionists that payment shall be made within 10 days and matter was fixed for verification of payment on 18.09.2018. On 18.09.2018, it was submitted by respondent that no payment has been received and the cheques given were dishonoured. On the same day, an application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of respondent to recover the amount agreed to be paid by the revisionists in the same manner as the fine would be recovered. The matter was fixed for consideration on said application on 19.09.2018 at 12:00 Noon. Said order was passed in the presence of AR of the revisionist company and its counsel. On 19.09.2018, Mr. Hemant Tulsiani AR of the revisionist company (revisionist no.3 in this petition) was present before the Ld. Trial Court. It was submitted by him before Ld. Court that he has made submission before another Court in connected matter that payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- shall be made by 29.09.2018 and matter was fixed for 29.09.2018 at 2:00 PM for verification of payment. On 29.09.2018, one Mr. Dhruv Arora, appeared on behalf of revisionist company as its AR by filing Board Resolution dated 12.07.2017. It was submitted by respondent on that day no subsequent payment has been received from them. Relevant portion of said order is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Neither the accused persons are present today nor they are making the payments as per their statement. As per point 3 of the settlement it was agreed by the parties that in the even of dishonour of any PDCs which was handed over in mediation settlement the accused is liable to pay this amount of PDC alongwith 12% interest from the date of dishonour. It is submitted Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 10/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:34:56
+0530
by the complainant that neither the principal amount nor the interest amount is received. It is further agreed that in case of non payment the complainant is at liberty to initiate action against the accused as per Dayawati Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, Crl. Ref. No. 1/2016 decided on 17/10/2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
An application U/s 421 r/w 431 Cr.P.C is filed by the complainant on the LDOH. Let warrants of attachment of Rs. 15 lacs is issued against the accused, returnable for NDOH."
10. So, it is clear from above that an application U/s 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C filed by the respondent on 18.09.2018 was allowed by this order and warrants of attachment in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- were issued by Ld. Trial Court. Interestingly, record reveals that in total six applications U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C were moved on behalf of respondent before Ld. Trial Court. The record thereof is mentioned below in a tabulated form for the sake of convenience:-
Record of applications U/s 431 r/w 421 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of respondent before Ld. Trial Court.
S.No. Date of application Amount (in Rupees) Date of decision.
1. 18.09.2018 15,00,000/- 29.09.2018
2. 14.11.2018 6,00,000/- 14.11.2018
3. 31.07.2019 33,50,279/- 31.07.2019
4. No date mentioned 11,45,100/- Not clear on the application
5. No date mentioned 22,14,105/- Not clear on the application
6. 02.12.2019 44,37,080/- 02.12.2019 Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 11/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:35:06
+0530
11. Apart from above, two separate applications U/s 421 Cr.P.C were moved on 01.10.2021 containing therein the details of movable as well immovable properties of the revisionists which can be attached for realization of the amount agreed to be paid by them before Mediation Center. Ld. Trial Court took into consideration both these applications and sent the same to the SDM concerned.
12. It is clear from above, that no application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C was pending adjudication as on 26.11.2021 before Ld. Trial Court. All the applications were already disposed of by Ld. Magistrate. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has vehemently argued before this Court that they should have been granted an opportunity to file reply to the application U/s 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the respondent, however, it seems that he was even not aware that more than one such application was moved before Ld. Magistrate. As the applications were already decided, so there was no occasion for them to file a reply to the same. If they were so interested in making submissions on such applications, they should have done so on the dates when those applications were allowed which they have failed to do for the reasons best known to them. I am unable to see any provision of law under which their request to have an opportunity to file reply to the applications already decided, could have been entertained. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has also failed to show any such provision.
13. Same can be said about their other request praying for review of 7 earlier orders of Ld. Trial Court alongwith for recall of issuance of Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 12/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:35:17
+0530
warrants of attachment which was rightly declined by Ld. Magistrate saying that same cannot be so done as Criminal Courts do not have power to review its orders. Ld. Counsel for revisionists has failed to show this Court any legal provision contrary to said proposition. He has relied upon order dated 21.09.2019 and argued that when warrants of attachment issued after allowing the application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C can be stayed by Ld. Trial Court then there was no bar in recalling the order allowing such application. Order dated 21.09.2019 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Ld. Presiding Officer is on leave today.
Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant with complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Application U/s 431 filed on behalf of accused person.
Warrants of attachment are stayed till NDOH.
Put up on 02.12.2019."
14. It is clear from above that the order dated 21.09.2019 was not passed by Ld. Magistrate conducting trial in this particular matter as she was on leave on that day. The ordersheet has been signed by Ld. Magistrate who was working as second link MM meaning thereby she was looking after the work of Ld. Trial Court alongwith that of her own Court. That seems to be the reason of a wrong fact in the ordersheet that an application U/s 431 was filed on behalf of accused (revisionists herein). It appears that no such application was ever filed on behalf of Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 13/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.02.16
17:35:31
+0530
accused and Ld. Counsel for revisionists has also not pointed out any such application. It appears that Ld. Link Magistrate was referring to the application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the respondent and same was mistakenly mentioned as filed on behalf of accused. Heavy workload due to leave of Ld. Link Magistrate might be the reason thereof. As far as the direction regarding stay of warrants of attachment is concerned, it appears that same was issued due to lack of assistance from the counsels appearing there. It was the duty of Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties to assist Ld. Link Magistrate as to how many applications U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C were moved on behalf of respondent till then and what was the status of warrants of attachment. The order staying warrants of attachment seems to be bad in law, passed due to inadequate assistance provided by Ld. Counsels. Same cannot be made a basis to argue before this Court that on that analogy, the request of revisionists for review of orders dated 29.09.2018, 14.11.2018, 19.01.2019, 04.02.2019, 31.07.2019, 02.12.2019 and 07.02.2020 alongwith for recall of warrants of attachment against them should have been allowed. Ld. Counsel should have quoted relevant legal provisions/judgments before Ld. Trial Court to seek the said relief which was not so done. Same has not been so done even before this Court. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of Ld. Magistrate dated 26.11.2021.
15. As mentioned earlier, no application U/s 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C was disposed of vide impugned order so the question of Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 14/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16
17:35:39
+0530
compliance/ non compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court in the judgment of Dayawati (supra) does not arise at all. The submissions made on this particular point are of no help to the case of revisionists. As far as the issue of fraud having been played by the respondent on Ld. Trial Court is concerned, Ld. Counsel for revisionists has failed to show any such thing from record. Apparently, there is a document dated 26.10.2013 executed on behalf of revisionist company acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 1 crore from the respondent. Whether said document is genuine or not and whether that payment was actually received or not by the revisionist company is a fact to be seen by Ld. Magistrate during trial as per law and its genuineness cannot be doubted on mere oral submission on behalf of revisionists. The judgments relied upon by revisionists are not applicable in the given facts.
16. It is settled law that while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, this Court can interefere only when the impugned order is perverse or untenable in law. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed as under :
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 15/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16 17:35:53 +0530 possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court.The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
17. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court so as to warrant interference from this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Digitally signed by SUNILSUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.02.16 17:36:04 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 16th February, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-06 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev. No. 227/2021 Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Ltd. Page No. 16/ 16 & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Batra & Anr.