9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the High Court should have stayed the trial based on a previous judgment.
Summary: The Appellant Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Respondents sought to add another party to the complaint, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The High Court, in a departure from the trial court's decision, ordered a fresh recording of evidence based on the judgment in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Anr. v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr. The appeal challenged this High Court order. The Appellant argued that the evidence was already fully recorded and did not require a fresh start by a new Magistrate. The Respondents, however, insisted on following the precedent set in the Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah case. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that it was indeed fully recorded and not in a summary manner. Consequently, the Court accepted the Appellant's submission, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to continue the proceedings from the current stage. The Court also rejected the Respondents' application to add another party to the complaint, emphasizing the complainant's discretion in choosing against whom to proceed.
|
