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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Goyal Sales Corporation (M/s) – Respondent
CRM-M No. 51537 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Mr. J.S. Dadwal

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 145(2) - Quashing of orders by the lower courts - Petitioner’s plea regarding delay in trial dismissed as unfounded - Application filed under Section 145(2) to be considered as the petitioner did not intend to delay proceedings. (Paras 1, 7, 9)

(B) Judicial discretion - Courts must examine the merits of applications rather than dismiss them on procedural grounds unless malafide intentions are evident. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was summoned under Section 138 and subsequently filed an application under Section 145(2), which was dismissed by the lower courts claiming it caused delay.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found no substantial evidence indicating an intention to delay and allowed the application under Section 145(2).

Issues: Whether the application under Section 145(2) was made to delay the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that applications should be adjudged based on their merits, not dismissed as delaying tactics without evidence of such intent.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. details of procedural history and case timeline. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on application and trial delay. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
4. final ruling and order allowance. (Para 9)

Judgment

Mr. Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

Prayer in the petition is for quashing of orders dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, and 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 13.03.2015, the petitioner was summoned in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the petitioner appeared on 15.02.2016 and he was released on bail; that the notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner on 18.03.2016 and the case was adjourned to 11.04.2016; that on 11.04.2016 the petitioner along with his counsel appeared and the case was further adjourned for 10.05.2016 and as on that date, the lawyers were abstaining from work, the case was adjourned for 25.05.2016; that on 25.05.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request to move an application and the case was adjourned for 19.07.2016; that the petitioner moved an application under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and reply to the same was also filed and that application was declined on the ground that the same has been filed to cause delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, has also discussed that the plea taken by the applicant-accused that the cheque in question was issued as a security cheque can be proved by him at the time of his defence evidence by leading cogent and reliable evidence to that effect, but there is no occasion for the petitioner to cause any delay.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner-accused by the learned Courts below and the application under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act has rightly been dismissed, as the same was filed just to delay the trial.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared on 15.02.2016, the notice of accusation was served upon him on 18.03.2016 and the case was adjourned to 11.04.2016, the petitioner along with his counsel appeared and the case was further adjourned for 10.05.2016 and as on that date, the lawyers were abstaining from work, the case was adjourned for 25.05.2016 and on that day, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request to move an application and the case was adjourned for 19.07.2016 and on that day an application for under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was moved and reply to the same was also filed.

7. In view of the above, this Court do not find that the application for under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was moved for delaying the trial. The orders dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, and 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, are set aside. The application for under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will not take any unnecessary adjournment to delay the trial.

9. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top