Delhi District Court
M/S Afaan Food Processing Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Taha Agro Frozen Foods on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010037302025
CR Rev No. 238/2025
1. M/S AFAAN FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD.
Office at H. No. E-61, First floor Left Side Old
Village, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.
Through its Signatory Mr. Adil Riaz SPA Holder on behalf of
petitioner No.2.
2. MR. SALMAN QADEER
Director of M/s. Afaan Food Processing Pvt. Ltd.
S/o Sh. Abid Qadeer
Atiya House, Plot No. 553
Gali No.2, Near Sana School,
Igra Colony Dhaurra Mafi,
Aligarh, UP-202002.
Through its Signatory Mr. Adil Riaz
SPA Holder on behalf of petitioner No. 2.
CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 1/19
........REVISIONISTS
versus
M/S TAHA AGRO FROZEN FOODS
Through its Proprietor Sh. Mudassir Hayat
S/o Qaiser Hayat
Having its office at 107, 1st Floor, Pocket-1,
Jasola, Delhi-110025.
............Respondent
Date of institution : 16.04.2025
Date of Reserving judgment : 14.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed u/s 438 of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-03, South-East District in CC NI Act No. 3526/2021 titled as M/S TAHA Agro Frozen Foods Vs. Afaan Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. and Others. The said complaint was filed by respondent herein against the revisionists herein as well as one other person namely Tabish Furqan. Vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2025, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to allow the application moved by the respondent herein u/s 143 A Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered the revisionist as CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 2/19 well as said Tabish Furqan to pay interim compensation to the tune of Rs.6,75,000/- within 60 days from the date of the impugned order.
GROUNDS OF REVISION
2. The grounds cited by the revisionists are as under:-
A. The Ld. Trial Court has erred in granting interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act, as the provision is applicable only when the accused is prima facie found to be guilty of the offence. However, in the present case, the Petitioner have raised a strong and plausible defence that the cheques were issued as security and that the amounts owed by them has already been repaid. The Learned Trial court failed to properly evaluate the defence or the material available on record that demonstrates the non-liability of the Petitioners.
B. The Ld. Trial Court mistakenly treated Section 143A of the NI Act as if it required a fixed award of interim compensation. In reality, Section 143A is meant to provide temporary relief only when there is a clear case against the accused. In this matter, the Petitioners have shown that the cheques were issued only as security and that a large portion of the disputed sum has already been repaid. The trial court did not carefully review the evidence or explain why it decided to impose interim compensation. This failure to assess the facts individually runs counter to established law and renders the order legally unsupportable. C. The Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the cheques in question were issued purely as security. It is submitted that the presumption of liability in Section 138 of the NI Act does not apply to security cheques, and the dishonour of such cheques does not automatically result in the imposition of liability. The Petitioners' defence, particularly that a substantial sum of money has already been CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 3/19 repaid to the complainant, was not duly considered by the Trial Court while granting interim compensation. D. Ld. Trial Court did not distinguish between a genuine security cheque and one that might trigger a presumption of liability. Moreover, the significant repayment already made by the Petitioners shows there was no intention to default. Ignoring these key points, the court has imposed an interim order that is both disproportionate and legally unsound. E. The Learned Trial Court has erred in excessively relying upon the delay in the proceedings as a justification for the grant of interim compensation. It is crucial to note that the delay in the present case cannot be attributed solely to the Petitioners. Multiple adjournments were granted due to the failure of the Respondent to appear or complete cross- examination. Specifically, the Respondent failed to appear on 19.04.2021, and in the absence of the Respondent's counsel, the Trial Court framed notice against the accused Petitioners. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to appear and pursue his own matter on 20.01.2022, and 01.06.2022. It is also pertinent to mention that the Respondent failed to appear on 18.07.2022, 08.09.2022, 23.02.2023, 11.05.2023, and 02.11.2023. In light of these facts, the Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the delays caused by the Respondent's repeated failure to attend the proceedings or to effectively present his case.
F. It is respectfully submitted that The Learned Trial Court also failed to consider a critical factor in this case is the severe medical condition of Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Salman Qadeer. After suffering a debilitating paralysis attack in February 2022, Mr. Qadeer has been confined to bed and is unable to perform his professional or personal duties. His illness not only prevents him from earning an income but also limits his ability to participate in legal proceedings, such as attending cross-examinations. In light of these CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 4/19 extraordinary circumstances, the delay in cross-examination was beyond the control of the Petitioners.
G. The Learned Trial Court failed to duly consider the financial condition of the Petitioners, which constitutes a material factor in determining the amount and feasibility of interim compensation. The Petitioners have raised legitimate concerns regarding their financial capacity to make such payments. Specifically, it is submitted that Petitioner No. 2 is the sole earner in the family and bears the responsibility of supporting two minor children and elderly parent, aged 80 years.
H. The learned Trial court failed to consider that for the past 4 years, Petitioner No. 1 (Company) has not earned any income from their business. Further, the petitioner is entrapped in multiple litigations and FIRs arising out of the same cause of action as that of the present case, which has left him in such a hard situation which he is unable to cope with because of his medical situation as well as financial condition, without any fault from his side. In light of these facts, it is respectfully submitted that the Learned Trial Court passed its judgment without adequately considering the Petitioners' financial circumstances. The court did not adequately evaluate the Petitioners' financial condition before passing the order for interim compensation.
I. The Learned Trial court erred in not properly considering and applying the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. (Civil Petition No. 7480 of 2018). In this landmark judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the scope and application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and provided specific guidance on the circumstances under which interim compensation may be awarded in cases involving dishonor of cheques. In particular, the judgment emphasized the need CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 5/19 for a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances before passing an order under Section 143A, ensuring that such an order is not passed in a routine or automatic manner but is rather based on a clear, judicious consideration of the facts and merits of the case. The Court also highlighted the importance of the principles of natural justice, including the right of the accused to contest the demand for interim compensation before any such order is passed.
J. The learned Trial court failed to adhere to the principles set out in the Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand &anr (Civil Appeal no. 7480 of 2018). The Hon'ble Supreme court of India case, wherein it was held that the decision to award interim compensation under Section 143A should be taken after due consideration of the material on record. In the present case, the Trial court has passed the order for interim compensation under Section 143A without taking into account the merits of the defense, the nature of the dishonor of the cheque, and whether the applicant has made a prima facie case for the payment of interim compensation. This failure to apply the correct legal principles renders the order unsustainable in law. As per the Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava ruling, the trial court must establish a clear case of default before passing an order under Section 143A of the NI Act. In this present case, the trial court did not provide sufficient justification or reasoning for its decision, failing to assess whether the prima facie case of the complainant warranted the grant of interim compensation.The applicant was not given a fair opportunity to challenge the claim for interim compensation or to provide his defense adequately.
K. The ruling in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand & anr (Civil Appeal no. 7480 of 2018). The Hon'ble Supreme court of India emphasized that any award under Section 143A must be made in compliance with the CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 6/19 specific statutory framework of the NI Act, and the order should be based on sound reasoning. The trial court's order is contrary to these statutory requirements, as it did not meet the criteria set out in the judgment and the provisions of the Act.
L. It is submitted that the failure of the trial court to correctly apply the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand &anr (Civil Appeal no. 7480 of 2018). The Hon'ble Supreme court of India case has resulted in a prejudicial order that not only affects the applicant's rights but also undermines the principles of fair trial and due process. The decision to grant interim compensation without due regard for the law and facts has caused irreversible harm to the applicant's case, and thus the order must be set aside.
M. The issue of interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act has been addressed in several rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of "M/S. Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta" (2018) 1 SCC 540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interim compensation under Section 143A is not automatic and must be granted only after considering the nature of the case and the financial condition of the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Section 143A is a discretionary provision and the grant of interim compensation should be based on a prima facie case of dishonor of cheque, after considering the conduct of the accused and the overall delay in the case.
N. It is submitted that recent ruling in "Ravi Chopra vs. State of Bihar" (2023) 5 SCC 202, further reinforced this position. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the discretion to grant interim compensation should be exercised cautiously, and the accused's defence, financial condition, and delay tactics must be carefully weighed before passing any order for CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 7/19 interim compensation. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of Section 143A is to prevent undue delays in the resolution of cheque-related disputes but this should not override the fundamental principle of fairness and the rights of the accused.
O. It is submitted that the Section 143A of the NI Act is a discretionary provision, not mandatory. The Learned Trial Court has incorrectly treated the provision as mandatory, without giving due regard to the nature of the proceedings and the defences raised by the Petitioners. The amount of interim compensation awarded is disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the Petitioners' defence and financial condition. P. By imposing interim compensation without giving the Petitioners a full opportunity to contest the claim, the learned trial court has breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. A fair trial requires that all relevant factors-including Mr. Qadeer's severe medical condition and the significant financial difficulties faced by both the individual and the company be carefully considered. The failure to do so has led to an order that is not only legally unsustainable but also morally indefensible.
Q. Finally, the amount of interim compensation imposed-15% of the cheque value (Rs. 6,75,000) is grossly disproportionate to the facts of the case. In light of the strong defense presented, the evidence of significant repayments made, and the severe financial hardship experienced by petitioner no. 1 and 2 this financial burden is unwaranted. Such an award not only violates the principle of proportionality but also deepens the economic and personal hardships faced by the petitioners, causing irreparable harm to their stability and dignity.
3. It has been prayed on behalf of the revisionists that the CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 8/19 impugned orders may be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
4. The prayer has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that the order has been correctly passed by the Ld. Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
DISCUSSION
5. This court has considered the above submissions and the records.
Law Governing The Issue
6. 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 days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 9/19 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."
7. 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. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 10/19 mandatory in nature.
8. 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 Section 143A(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."
9. 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. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 11/19 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.
10. 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. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 12/19 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
11. The facts of the case have been correctly noted by the Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order at paras 2 and 3. The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
"2. The case of the complainant is that around September 2018, accused no.2 and 3 had approached him to invest in their business for which he would be paid interest as well as the principal amount. Terms and conditions were agreed upon as is stated by the complainant and accordingly, till 31.3.2019, the complainant invested a total of Rs.1,10,25,000. Out of this, a sum of Rs.88,46,359 which included the interest as well remained to be paid to the complainant. That on 1.04.2019, an agreement was executed between the complainant and accused no.2 and 3 wherein the principal of Rs.77,50,000 and interest of Rs.10,96,359 was to be be paid by 1.10.2019 and cheques were given as security which could be encashed in the event of non payment. A payment of Rs.7,00,000 was made on 1.06.2019. However, the principal amount as well as the remaining interest was not paid within the stipulated time frame. In the month of January 2020, three cheques amounting to Rs.32,50,000 were, therefore, encashed CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 13/19 by the complainant which got dishonoured and for which the present complaint has been filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that the ingredients of section 143A NI Act are fully satisfied since there exists a prima facie case and in the present matter, there has been a lot of delay caused on the part of the accused persons wherein the case has been going on since 2021. Therefore, interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the cheque amount should be granted."
12. The contentions of the revisionists have also been noted by the Ld Magistrate in the impugned order at para 4. The same is reproduced below for ready reference.
"4. Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 had filed a reply on 04.08.2022 which was subsequently relied upon by accused no.3 and accused no.1 on 22.9.2022. Since no written submissions have been filed on behalf of any of the accused, these submissions would be relied upon. It is submitted that the accused persons have a strong defence wherein the cheques were given as security cheques and that complete payment has already been made by accused persons. Further, no undue delay has been caused by the accused persons and the complainant has absented himself on multiple occasions, therefore, he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Lastly, the provision of interim compensation is only directory and not mandatory CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 14/19 and in view of the defence of the accused persons, the said application should be denied."
13. Thereafter, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to allow the application u/s 143 A NI Act moved by the complainant. The reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference:
"6. On the anvil of prima facie case, it needs to be noted that accused no. 2 and 3 both admit the correctness of the agreement dated 01.04.2019 wherein the terms and conditions of profit sharing and return of the amount invested were discussed. The agreement also contained the issuance of 6 cheques for a total of Rs.77,50,000. His case has been further substantiated by his ledger statement as well as Statement of Account which show the transfer of funds to the accused made online as well as in cash. These documents have not been substantially rebutted by the accused in his cross examination. Even an analysis of the defence of the accused persons at the stage of section 251 CrPC does not deny that the said amount was indeed taken by the accused persons from the complainant. While both accused persons state that the cheques were given as security cheques, accused no.2 states a substantial sum was paid back to the complainant and accused no.3 also deposes on similar lines by stating that around Rs.53 Lacs were paid to the complainant. Considering that the defence of 'security' CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 15/19 cheque is not sufficient to absolve any liability of the accused persons, this Court finds that the complainant has been successfully able to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons.
7. Apart from a prima facie case, in V. Krishnamurthy v Dairy Classic ICE Creams (Pvt.) Ltd. 2022 SCC Online Kar 1047, it was highlighted that the conduct of the accused would be very important in terms of ascertaining whether or not to grant interim compensation. If the accused has adopted dilatory tactics and sought too many adjournments, consideration of the application then becomes imperative. This factor also becomes important in the light of the very objective behind introducing the provision of interim compensation, namely to scuttle the delay tactics adopted by the accused to prolong NI Act proceedings.
8. If the conduct of the accused persons as well as the overall delay in the complaint is seen, it needs to be noted that the conduct of the accused persons, especially on the part of accused no.3 has not been satisfactory. Accused persons have taken multiple adjournments and a perusal of record would show that NBWs have been issued twice against accused no.3 i.e. on 19/4/2022 and 2/11/2023. The amount of delay that has happened in the matter is clear from the fact that the matter was first put up for CE on 1/6/2022 and the last time cross examination was done in the matter was on 7.12.2023. Till date, the matter continues to be on the same purpose and multiple times, last and final opportunities have been CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 16/19 provided to conclude cross examination. The present provision was designed to address the very same problem of undue delays in resolution of cheque related matters. The aforementioned facts clearly highlight the presence of undue delays on the part of the accused persons which makes out a valid case for grant of compensation under section 143A NI Act.
9. Consequently, keeping in mind the overall circumstances of the case, accused no.1, Afaan Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., accused no.2 Tabish Furqan and accused no.3 Salman Qadeer are directed to pay 15% of the total cheque amount i.e. 6,75,000 as interim compensation to the complainant proprietor Mudassir Hayat within 60 days from this order."
DECISION
14. A bare perusal of the impugned order reflects that the Ld. Magistrate has considered all the pleadings/arguments and the records available before him. Ld. Magistrate has also considered the plea of defence raised by the revisionists.
15. As to the merits of the case, this Court notes that the respondent claims that the dishonoured cheques were issued in order to 'secure' his investments and the same could be presented (for encashment) in case of non payment of his investments. On the other hand, revisionists have stated that the amount claimed by the respondent under the dishonoured cheques is no longer due and payable as a sum of Rs. 53 lakhs has already been CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 17/19 returned to it (respondent). Admittedly, parties have entered into an agreement which bears the details of the dishonoured cheques. Admittedly, revisionists have not placed any document before the Ld. Magistrate which reflects the payment of Rs. 53 lakhs to the respondent. That being so, this Court feels that the observations made by Ld. Magistrate, to the effect that a prima facie case has been made out by the respondent against the revisionists, are indeed justified. That apart, the TCR does reflect that revisionists have been delaying the disposal of the case on merits.
16. Be that as it may, as per Ministry of Corporate Affairs Records Ex.CW1/1 (available in the TCR) revisionist No. 2 Salman Qadeer is not a Director in the revisionist No. 1 M/s AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., whose cheques got dishonoured when presented for encashment by the respondent. Admittedly, revisionist Salman Qadeer is merely an authorized signatory of the said company, which fact is acknowledged by the observations made by the Ld. Magistrate in the summoning order dated 17.09.2021. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 could not be sustained against the revisionist Salman Qadeer in view of the observations made in SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT LTD VS PRITHIVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH SLP CRL 8849-8850/2023 decided on 24.07.2024.
17. As such, the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 is set aside qua revisionist Salman Qadeer only. The impugned order is affirmed qua revisionist M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of.
CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 18/19
18. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
Digitally
19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room as per rules. signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.08.19 10:29:03 Dictated and Announced +0530 in open Court on 14.08.2025 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East) Saket Courts, Delhi CR Rev No. 238/2025 M/s. AFAAN Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Taha Agro Frozen Foods 19/19