Scribd
Upload
1 views

138 filled with delay

The document details a legal case where the complainant, Vasu Khare, sought condonation of delay in filing a complaint against Discovery Hotels for dishonored cheques. The complainant provided reasons for the delay, including the unavailability of his previous counsel and job-related travel, which were deemed bona fide by the court. The application for condonation was allowed, and the accused was summoned under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonor of the cheques.

Uploaded by

Rohit Attri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1 views

138 filled with delay

The document details a legal case where the complainant, Vasu Khare, sought condonation of delay in filing a complaint against Discovery Hotels for dishonored cheques. The complainant provided reasons for the delay, including the unavailability of his previous counsel and job-related travel, which were deemed bona fide by the court. The application for condonation was allowed, and the accused was summoned under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonor of the cheques.

Uploaded by

Rohit Attri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Vasu Khare Vs.

Discovery Hotels 10661

Present; Complainant in person with Ms. Aasita, Advocate.

This order shall dispose of the application for condonation of delay


in filing the present complaint.
It is the case of the complainant/applicant that cause of action of fil-
ing the present complaint was arose on 02.01.2019. Complainant was unable to
file the complaint on time and the reason was beyond the control of the com-
plainant. Complainant got the knowledge about the dishonour of the cheque on
19.11.2018 and he engaged Sh. Waheb Hussaini as his Advocate for drafting and
service of the legal notice upon the accused. Legal notice dated 05.12.2018 was
sent to the accused on 17.12.2018 and accused did not make the payment.

In the end of January 2019 complainant asked his counsel for insti-
tution of the complaint. His counsel expressed his unwillingness to take the
brief due to certain personal and professional obligations. The counsel commu-
nicated his unwillingness through phone call and returned the brief on
16.02.2019. During this period complainant was diligently following his case.
Copies of Whatsapp messages with the counsel are annexed with the applica-
tion.

Thereafter, complainant was forced to find a new counsel. The


search of new counsel was disrupted because the complainant joined a new job
on 19.11.2018 and was required to meet the needs of his new employer. The
work profile of the complainant involves carrying out market serveys in poten-
tial areas and complainant traveled to Agra, Rishikesh, Pushkar and Manali dur-
ing this period. In the 3rd week of March 2019 complainant handed over the doc-
uments to his new counsel and as a result the delay occurred. Notice of this ap-
plication was given to the respondent and respondent has been proceeded
against exparte.

The period of limitation for filing the present complaint expired on


23.01.2019 and the complaint has been filed on 02.04.2019 after a delay of 69
days. It is the case of the complainant that the impugned cheque was issued by
the accused for his salary and final settlement. The previous counsel return the
brief at the time of institution of the complaint. Thereafter, complainant took a
new job and had to travel to various places and thus could not engage a new
counsel and could not institute the complaint on time. Alongwith the application
complainant has filed copy of Whatsapp communication with his previous
counsel.

The reason cited by the complainant for not instituting the complaint
on time seems bonafide. The delay appears to be beyond the control of the com-
plainant. No prejudice would be caused to be respondent since despite service
respondent has not come present and contested the application. Hence, in the
interest of justice, application for condonation of delay in filing the present
complaint is hereby allowed.
(Vivek Tomar)
JMIC,Gurugram,11.09.2019
UID No. HR0437
(Reetu/ Stenographer-III)
Vasu Khare Vs. Discovery Hotels 10661

Present: AR for complainant with Ms. Aasita, Advocate.


None for respondent.
Order:
Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the accused issued Cheque No.
264510 dated 10.09.2018 for Rs. 68,917/-, 264512 dated 07.10.2018 for Rs. 29,094/- for the
payment to the complainant in discharge of the liability. The said cheque(s) on presentation to
the banker of the accused was/were received back with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”.
Complainant served a legal notice upon the accused through post demanding the cheque
amount. Despite that accused failed to make the payment to the complainant.

2. To substantiate the facts, the complainant stepped into the witness box as CW1 and
reiterated the contents of the complaint. Complainant further placed on record the original
cheque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipts, etc.

3. Heard. Perusal of the documents placed on record reveals that the complainant had
presented the cheque issued by the accused to his banker in time. Thereafter complainant issued
a legal notice to the accused within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
communication about the fact of dishonour of the cheque. Accused failed to make the payment
to the complainant within stipulated time.

4. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion there are sufficient prima facie grounds to
proceed against the accused u/s138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As a necessary corollary of
the above discussion accused is hereby summoned for commission of offence u/s 138 read with
Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons be issued to the accused for 25.11.2019
on filing of process fees through registered cover/ Speed Post/Approved Courier Service/e-
mail. Summon be taken dasti, if so desired.

Announced in Open Court: (Vivek Tomar)


11.09.2019 Judicial Magistrate I Class,
Gurugram/UID no. HR0437
Vasu Khare Vs. Discovery Hotels 10661

Present: AR for complainant with Ms. Aasita, Advocate.


None for respondent.

Notice issued to the respondent through registered post not


received back either served or unserved. Postal receipt alongwith tracking report
placed on record which shows that notice to respondent has been delivered.
Case called several times since morning. None has appeared on behalf of re-
spondent. It is already 3:00 P.M. further wait is not justified. Let respondent is
proceeded against exparte.
Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay in filing
the present complaint. Vide separate order of even date, application for condo-
nation of delay has been allowed.
Complainant tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith certain
documents in preliminary evidence and thereafter, he closed his preliminary evidence.
Heard on the point of summoning of the accused. Vide my separately
recorded order of even date, accused has been summoned u/s 138 read with section 141
of the Negotiable Instrument Act for 25.11.2019. Summon be taken dasti, if so desired.

(Vivek Tomar)
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Gurugram,UID no. HR0437
Date of Order : 11.09.2019
(Reetu/ Stenographer Gr.-III)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy