Delhi District Court
Axis Bank Ltd. vs . Bhupender Garg on 9 April, 2012
1
CR No.28/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Bhupender Garg
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the
assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same
is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011
of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the
offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint
u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the
trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 2 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 3 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
4
CR No.29/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. B. Chandra Shekar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 5 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 6 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
7
CR No.30/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Kamal Jeet
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 8 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 9 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
10
CR No.32/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Kanu Ghosh
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 11 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 12 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
13
CR No.33/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramji Lal
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 14 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 15 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
16
CR No.34/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 17 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 18 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
19
CR No.34/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 20 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 21 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
22
CR No.38/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Chouhary 09.04.2012 Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 23 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 24 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
25
CR No.39/12
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Chamoll
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate, whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the petitioner in its complaint.
It appears that the petitioner bank has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act and 142 of NI Act against the respondent before the trial court alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the respondent in the name of the petitioner bank towards part payment of his dues. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheques issued by the respondent were returned by his banker unpaid for the reason "funds insufficient".
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner bank did not file the cheque return memo and also did not lead pre 26 summoning evidence before the trial court despite various opportunities and for that reason, the trial court compellingly closed the pre summoning evidence of the petitioner bank and thereby declined to take cognizance of the offences, alleged in the complaint.
It is mentioned in the revision petition and was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that it was due to inadvertent mistake that the cheque return memo could not be filed before the trial court and its non filing was not deliberate. However, it may be noted here that no such cheque returning memo has either been shown by the ld. counsel for the petitioner to this court or has been filed alongwith the revision petition.
The revision petition was adjourned time and again at the request of ld. counsel for the petitioner and despite such adjournments, no such cheque return memo has been filed on record. No reason has been explained in the revision petition which precluded the petitioner from leading its pre-summoning evidence before the Trial Court.
The affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect and hence does not deserve any consideration.
For the aforestated reasons, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court as it does 27 not suffer from any error or infirmity. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
28
CR No.26/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Bikash Bal
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner in his revision petition has assailed the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint as the petitioner did not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice of demand upon the respondent and also did not lead pre summoning evidence before the trial court.
In the affidavit filed today, it has been deposed by the AR of the petitioner bank that the legal notice was dispatched to the address of the respondent through courier as well as speed post. However, it is nowhere mentioned whether any acknowledgment signed by the respondent, in token of the receipt of the legal notice, has been received back by the petitioner company or not.
In the revision petition, it has been contended that due to some inadvertent mistake, the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner 29 could not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice before the trial court on 25.11.2011. This implies that the petitioner bank was in possession of such proof of delivery and same remained to be filed before the trial court due to inadvertence. The petitioner bank took various adjournments before this court also for filing on record the said proof of delivery but failed to file the same.
Besides, the petitioner bank has nowhere explained the reason which precluded it from leading its pre summoning evidence before the trial court. In fact the revision petition does not, even remotely, touch upon this issue.
Hence in my opinion, the ld. Magistrate was justified in refusing to take cognizance of the offence alleged by the petitioner in its complaint. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is without any merit. Same is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
30
CR No.25/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Ajay Kumar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner in his revision petition has assailed the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint as the petitioner did not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice of demand upon the respondent and also did not lead pre summoning evidence before the trial court.
In the affidavit filed today, it has been deposed by the AR of the petitioner bank that the legal notice was dispatched to the address of the respondent through courier as well as speed post. However, it is nowhere mentioned whether any acknowledgment signed by the respondent, in token of the receipt of the legal notice, has been received back by the petitioner company or not.
In the revision petition, it has been contended that due to some inadvertent mistake, the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner 31 could not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice before the trial court on 25.11.2011. This implies that the petitioner bank was in possession of such proof of delivery and same remained to be filed before the trial court due to inadvertence. The petitioner bank took various adjournments before this court also for filing on record the said proof of delivery but failed to file the same.
Besides, the petitioner bank has nowhere explained the reason which precluded it from leading its pre summoning evidence before the trial court. In fact the revision petition does not, even remotely, touch upon this issue.
Hence in my opinion, the ld. Magistrate was justified in refusing to take cognizance of the offence alleged by the petitioner in its complaint. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is without any merit. Same is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
32
CR No.27/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Anil Kumar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
The petitioner in his revision petition has assailed the order dated 25.11.2011 of the ld. Magistrate whereby he declined to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint as the petitioner did not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice of demand upon the respondent and also did not lead pre summoning evidence before the trial court.
In the affidavit filed today, it has been deposed by the AR of the petitioner bank that the legal notice was dispatched to the address of the respondent through courier as well as speed post. However, it is nowhere mentioned whether any acknowledgment signed by the respondent, in token of the receipt of the legal notice, has been received back by the petitioner company or not.
In the revision petition, it has been contended that due to some inadvertent mistake, the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner 33 could not file the proof of delivery of the legal notice before the trial court on 25.11.2011. This implies that the petitioner bank was in possession of such proof of delivery and same remained to be filed before the trial court due to inadvertence. The petitioner bank took various adjournments before this court also for filing on record the said proof of delivery but failed to file the same.
Besides, the petitioner bank has nowhere explained the reason which precluded it from leading its pre summoning evidence before the trial court. In fact the revision petition does not, even remotely, touch upon this issue.
Hence in my opinion, the ld. Magistrate was justified in refusing to take cognizance of the offence alleged by the petitioner in its complaint. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is without any merit. Same is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
34
CR No.36/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Dinesh Kumar Dinkar
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
Perusal of the revision reveals that it has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 of ld. Magistrate. However, I do not find any such order on record. The petitioner has annexed certified copy of order dated 15.10.2011 alongwith the revision petition, vide which its complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act was dismissed by the ld. Magistrate, in exercise of powers vested u/s 204 (4) Cr.P.C., for non filing of the process fee for the service of respondent, in spite of reasonable time given for the same.
If it is to be taken that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011, of the trial court, in that case, the revision petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The revision petition has been filed on 13.2.2012 which is patently barred by time. It is not accompanied 35 by any application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Even the affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect.
With the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
36
CR No.35/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Govind Ram
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
Perusal of the revision reveals that it has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 of ld. Magistrate. However, I do not find any such order on record. The petitioner has annexed certified copy of order dated 15.10.2011 alongwith the revision petition, vide which its complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act was dismissed by the ld. Magistrate, in exercise of powers vested u/s 204 (4) Cr.P.C., for non filing of the process fee for the service of respondent, in spite of reasonable time given for the same.
If it is to be taken that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011, of the trial court, in that case, the revision petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The revision petition has been filed on 13.2.2012 which is patently barred by time. It is not accompanied 37 by any application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Even the affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect.
With the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
38
CR No. 31/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Jagdish
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
Perusal of the revision reveals that it has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 of ld. Magistrate. However, I do not find any such order on record. The petitioner has annexed certified copy of order dated 15.10.2011 alongwith the revision petition, vide which its complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act was dismissed by the ld. Magistrate, in exercise of powers vested u/s 204 (4) Cr.P.C., for non filing of the process fee for the service of respondent, in spite of reasonable time given for the same.
If it is to be taken that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011, of the trial court, in that case, the revision petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The revision petition has been filed on 13.2.2012 which is patently barred by time. It is not accompanied 39 by any application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Even the affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect.
With the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012
40
CR No.37/12
Axis Bank Limited vs. Prem Chadra Maurya
09.04.2012
Present:- Sh. Dharamdev advocate for the petitioner.
ld. counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the assistant Manager/Authorised signatory of the petitioner bank. Same is taken up on record.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
Perusal of the revision reveals that it has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 of ld. Magistrate. However, I do not find any such order on record. The petitioner has annexed certified copy of order dated 15.10.2011 alongwith the revision petition, vide which its complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act was dismissed by the ld. Magistrate, in exercise of powers vested u/s 204 (4) Cr.P.C., for non filing of the process fee for the service of respondent, in spite of reasonable time given for the same.
If it is to be taken that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2011, of the trial court, in that case, the revision petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The revision petition has been filed on 13.2.2012 which is patently barred by time. It is not accompanied 41 by any application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Even the affidavit of the AR of the petitioner bank filed today is totally silent on this aspect.
With the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned trial court.
Announced in open Court (VIRENDER BHAT)
on this 09.04.2012. ASJ :Dwarka Courts
09.4.2012