2015 (4) TMI 1208 - HC - Indian Laws

Settlement of the Mediation Cell - Held that - Once the matters are settled before the mediation centre, the trial court would have insisting the respondent No.2 to pay the amount secondly, the decision of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod referred by the trial court does not help the case of respondent No.2 as the proceedings have gone to stage of Section 145(2) of the Act. The notice of the abovementioned petitions were issued but despite of service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence the order dated 16th February, 2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in the Criminal Complaint bearing No.399/1/12 titled as M/s Arun International Vs. M/s. Shree Shyam Enterprises & Ors. is quashed qua the petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to pass the appropriate judgment in accordance with the circumstances in the matter against the respondent No.2 without any further delay on the basis of the statement made in mediation and to the court. The present petitions are accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitions filed under Section 482 seeking relief for setting aside order due to territorial jurisdiction issue.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The court took cognizance of the complaint and issued a notice to the respondent. Subsequently, bailable warrants were issued when the respondent failed to appear. The respondent appeared, took bail, and moved an application under Section 145(2) of the Act. Despite various court appearances and proceedings, the matter was eventually settled through mediation at Rohini District Courts. The settlement was recorded before the Magistrate, where the respondent admitted the claim and sought time to pay the agreed amount. However, the Metropolitan Magistrate returned the complaints for want of jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding the stage at which cases should be tried by the court where they are pending.

The High Court held that the settlement at the Mediation Center is deemed to be a decree and cannot be challenged. The court found the impugned order to be illegal and contrary to law. It noted that once a matter is settled through mediation, the trial court should have insisted on the respondent to pay the amount. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court decision cited by the trial court did not support the respondent's case since the proceedings had advanced to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act. Despite issuing notices, the respondent did not appear. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to pass an appropriate judgment against the respondent based on the statement made during mediation without further delay.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitions, granting the petitioner costs to be paid by the respondent. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.