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

2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 17622

DELHI HIGH COURT
SUNIL MANTRI – Appellant
Versus
MAHARASHTRA SAVINGS & ANR – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-5081/2018 2023:DHC:6972



CRL.M.C. 5081/2018

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 19thSeptember, 2023

+

CRL.M.C. 5081/2018 & CRL.M.A. 33563/2018 (stay)

SUNIL MANTRI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.P.N. Ravinddran, Senior Advocate

with Mr.M.K.Ghosh, Ms.Tina Garg

and Mr.Amrit B.Mohanty, Advocates.

versus

MAHARASHTRA SAVINGS & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Pankaj Kumar Singh,

Mr.Gurmeher S. Sistani and Mr.Beh

Daniel Mathew, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.Rishi Manchanda Standing

Counsel along with Siddharth Mullick

Advocate for the official liquidator

R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.C. 5081/2018

1.

The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 31st

July, 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Saket

District Courts in Criminal Revision No. 204191/2016.

2.

Vide the aforesaid impugned order, the revision petition filed on

behalf of the respondent no.1/complainant was allowed and the order dated

22ndJanuary, 2016, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM),

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:25.09.2023

12:49:25

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5081/2018

Page 2 of 6

Saket District Courts was set aside.

3.

Brief facts leading to the present petition are as under: -

a.

The accused company, of which the petitioner herein was a director,

issued a cheque dated 1stSeptember, 2013, of Rs.13,88,00,000/- drawn on

Dena Bank, Mumbai to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 presented

the said cheque for payment at Syndicate Bank, New Delhi, however, the

same was returned by the bank stating that the payment for the cheque has

been stopped by the company.

b.

Following this, the respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the

learned MM in which the petitioner was arrayed as an accused under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) on 11thOctober, 2013.

c.

On 1stAugust, 2014, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC

129, and held that the courts within whose jurisdiction the cheque had been

dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn, would be the competent

courts of jurisdiction for entertaining complaints under Section 138 of the NI

Act. The Supreme Court further directed that all pending complaints filed in

a court not having jurisdiction would be returned back to the complainant

and refiled within 30 days of their return before the court of appropriate

jurisdiction.

d.

In view of the aforesaid judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod

(supra), the learned MM, vide order dated 21stAugust, 2014, returned the

complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directed that the same be filed

before the court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days.

e.

On 15thJune, 2015, an ordinance, being the Negotiable Instruments

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

KUMAR

Signing Date:25.09.2023

12:49:25

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 5081/2018

Page 3 of 6

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (Ordinance) was promulgated wherein,

Section 142(2) and Section 142A were inserted in the NI Act. In terms of the

newly inserted Section 142(2), the jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI

Act was vested in the court where the cheque was delivered for collection

through the account of the payee. As per the newly inserted Section 142A,

all cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act were to be transferred to the

court of appropriate jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the NI Act.

f.

In view of the aforesaid amendment, the respondent no.1 filed an

application for restoration of the complaint on 20thOctober, 2015, which

was dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 22ndJanuary, 2016, as

the same was not filed within 30 days.

g.

The respondent no.1 filed a revision petition against the aforesaid

order of the learned MM, which was allowed by the learned ASJ vide the

impugned order dated 31stJuly, 2018.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Dashrath

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 Back to top