Delhi District Court
M/S Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd vs Tdi Marketing Pvt. Ltd on 15 December, 2011
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge FTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Criminal Appeal No. 136/11
Unique ID No. : 02401R0551542011
1. M/s Enkay Foam Pvt. Ltd.
5/5777 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
2. Mayank Jain
5/5777 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
3. Promila Jain
5/5777 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
4. Saurabh Jain
5/5777 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
.....Appellants
VERSUS
TDI Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
D1, M3, Virat Bhawan, Dr. Mukherjee
Nagar, Commercial Complex
Delhi110009
.....Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal: 28.11.2011
Date of Decision of Appeal: 15.12.2011
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, Petitioners/Revisionists have assailed order dated 21.11.11 passed by Ld. ACMM (Central) whereby the transfer application filed by the Petitioners herein seeking transfer of four different cases preferred by the Respondent against the Petitioners to be in one court.
2. Admittedly, the Revisionists are facing trial in four separate complaint cases filed by the Respondent against them under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. It is the plea of the Petitioners that the first case was instituted on 23.12.09 at New Delhi district Patiala House Courts, the second case was filed on 12.3.10 at New Delhi district, Patiala House Courts, the third case was filed on 23.9.10 in South West district at Dwarka Court and the fourth case was filed on 12.10.10 in North district at Tis Hazari Delhi. Application for transfer for all the said cases was filed by the Respondent herein i.e. Complainant seeking transfer of all the cases to the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts. On the said application, Ld. ACMM (Central) vide impugned order directed that all the cases be transferred to the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts.
3. Revisionists/Accused are aggrieved by the said order and has challenged the same contending that said order be set aside, inasmuch as it does not comply with directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal 2010 Crl. L. J. 2860. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for Petitioners that as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, if it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, order for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after impopsing heavy costs on the Complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively. It was submitted that in these circumstances, all the complaint cases should have been transferred to the concerned court at Patiala House Courts where first complaint case was filed by Respondent. A prayer for imposition of cost upon the Respondent has also been made by the Petitioners in terms of the said judgment.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant has opposed this contention. It has been submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were to be given effect prospectively, as has been observed in the said judgment. It is further submitted that there is no ground for imposition of cost.
5. During the course of arguments, however, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner submitted that he will press his relief for imposition of cost upon the Respondent/Complainant before the concerned court and he does not press this relief at this stage.
6. Insofar as question of transfer of the complaint cases to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal (supra) has categorically laid down that the directions for transfer for all the cases to the first court should be given effect prospectively. It is own plea of the Petitioners that first case was instituted in Patiala House Courts on 23.12.09 i.e. prior to the date of judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal (supra).
7. Moreover, I find that spirit behind the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the such complaint cases should be tried by same court must be kept in mind while deciding this petition. No specific reason has been spelt out as to why cases should have been tried only at the concerned court at Patiala House Courts, particularly in view of the fact that the initial complaint case was instituted prior to the judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal (supra)
8. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that impugned order does not call for any interference, inasmuch as Ld. ACMM (Central) has already directed that all the four complaint cases shall be disposed of by one court. It is also not denied that the said court to whom all the four cases have now been transferred is special designated court meant to deal with cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and in all likelihood, disposal of cases is likely to be quicker in this court than the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, which is also dealing with cases of various police stations.
9. In the light of the aforesaid, I find that the spirit behind the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of trial of all such complaint cases under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act by one single court have been complied with and the impugned order does not require any interference.
10. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Trial court record along with copy of this order be sent to concerned court for information. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on December 15, 2011 Kaveri Baweja ASJFTC (Central) : Delhi