Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Shilpi Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs Alka Puri on 19 August, 2014

Bench: Ranjana Prakash Desai, Abhay Manohar Sapre

  ITEM NO.62                                  COURT NO.6                     SECTION II

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F       I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                           No(s).   1153/2014

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/09/2013
  in CRLMC No. 3145/2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at N.
  Delhi)

  SHILPI COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.                                              Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

  ALKA PURI                                                                   Respondent(s)

  (With appln. (s) for stay and office report)

  Date : 19/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

  CORAM :
                                  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

  For Petitioner(s)
                                          Mr. Amit Dayal ,Adv.

  For Respondent(s)
                                         Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv.
                                         Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar ,Adv.


                           UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

The complainant in C.C. No. 198/1/2013 pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is the petitioner before us. The complaint is filed inter alia under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Accused 3, who is the respondent herein, filed a petition for quahsing C.C. No. 198/1/2013 and summoning order dated 9-5-2013 on the ground that there is no specific averment in the complaint as to how and in what manner, the respondent is responsible for day-

to-day conduct of the business of the accused-company.

By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the petition. The High Court was of the opinion that the question raised in the petition was required to be raised before the Trial  -2- Court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of notice. We see no reason to interfere with this reasoning of the High Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, however, states that his objection is to the observations of the High Court which read as under:-

“In case trial court finds that notice is not to be framed against petitioner, then Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Pooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against petitioner”.

Learned counsel submitted that the High Court ought not to have stated that the Judgment of this Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Pooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 shall not stand in the way of trial court in dropping proceedings against the petitioner. We are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have put any fetters on the trial court. It is for the trial court to consider the ratio of Adalat Prasad and pass orders. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the question whether because of Adalat Prasad, the proceedings against the respondent herein could be dropped or not. The trial court will deal with the case independently and in accordance with law in the light of contentions raised before the High Court which are reproduced in the impugned order and on which we have not expressed any opinion. The same are kept open. We make it clear that the impugned order is modified to the above extent. Rest of the order is confirmed.

The special leave petition is disposed of.

       (VISHAL ANAND)                                       (INDU POKHRIYAL)
        COURT MASTER                                          COURT MASTER