SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Rajiv Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Abhay Mani Tripathi and Nipun Singh, Advocates
For the Opp. Party: G.A.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Nipun Singh along with Sri Naman Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.8.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 10789 of 2023 (Rahul Chauhan vs. Rajiv Malhotra), under Section 138 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”), P.S. Sector-20 Noida, Bulandshahr, pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-3/J.M., Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. learned counsel for the applicant contends that the complaint of opposite party No.2 was dismissed in default on 18.10.2023 at the stage of taking steps itself. Then, the concerned Court cannot restore the same because it had no jurisdiction to recall the order of dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Major General A.S. Gauraya and another vs. S.N. Thakur and another; (1986) 2 SCC 709. In paragraphs No. 9, 10 & 11 of this judgement, the Apex court observed that when the complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, then the secon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top