9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 308 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - amount outstanding against defendants - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - delay in filing review application - HELD THAT - The dismissal of cases under Section 138 NI Act by the learned Magistrate on the basis of non-filing of Annexures I II without examining the MoU and import of dishonoured cheques, would even otherwise be not binding upon this Court. Oral submissions of any alleged loss without an iota of written record allegedly placed by defendants, cannot be entertained, the impugned order having being merged in orders of LPAs . Also, there is much delay in filing of review application. The review application and delay condonation application are bereft of any merit and are rejected with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited with Lawyers Welfare Fund, Delhi High Court, New Delhi - application dismissed.
Issues:
Condonation of delay in moving the Review Petition, Infirmary of the order dated 03.04.2018, Maintainability of the review petition, Finality of the order dated 03.04.2018, Relevance of Annexure I & II to the MoU, Settlement agreements between the parties, Dismissal of cases under Section 138 NI Act, Delay in filing the review application. Condonation of Delay: The defendants sought condonation of a 401-day delay in moving the Review Petition No.225/2019 against the order dated 03.04.2018. The delay was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicants argued that the order was based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 14.06.2010, which was not fully disclosed by the plaintiffs, leading to the delay in pleading this fact. Infirmary of the Order: The defendants contended that the order dated 03.04.2018 was flawed as it was based on the MoU, which detailed financial transactions between the parties. They argued that crucial information, such as the replacement of cheques and return of loan amounts, was not fully disclosed by the plaintiffs, impacting the validity of the order. Maintainability of Review Petition: There was a question regarding the maintainability of the review petition as previous appeals challenging the order had been dismissed. The defendants had filed multiple appeals, including FAO(OS) No.94/2018 and LPA No.634/2018, which were both dismissed. The finality of the order dated 03.04.2018 was highlighted, raising concerns about the need for further challenges. Relevance of Annexure I & II to the MoU: The defendants argued that the MoU's annexures, crucial for understanding the transaction details, were not produced by the plaintiffs. They contended that the absence of these annexures affected the validity of the order under Order XXXVII CPC. The defendants' failure to submit these annexures was seen as a deliberate attempt to create ambiguity and benefit from their non-production. Settlement Agreements: Settlement agreements between the parties, including payment schedules and penalties, were highlighted. These agreements aimed to resolve financial disputes, but the defendants' failure to adhere to the payment terms raised concerns. The court noted the settlements but emphasized the need for compliance to avoid cancellation and legal repercussions. Dismissal of Cases under Section 138 NI Act: The dismissal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to non-filing of annexures I & II was discussed. The court emphasized that these dismissals were not binding and that oral submissions without written evidence could not be entertained. The importance of examining the MoU and dishonored cheques was reiterated. Delay in Filing Review Application: The court highlighted significant delays in filing the review application. The application and the delay condonation plea were deemed meritless and were rejected. The defendants were directed to pay costs of &8377; 10,000 to the Lawyers Welfare Fund, Delhi High Court. The court emphasized the lack of merit in the review application and condemned the defendants' conduct. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers various issues, including the condonation of delay, infirmity of the order, maintainability of the review petition, relevance of annexures to the MoU, settlement agreements, dismissal of cases under Section 138 NI Act, and delays in filing the review application. The court's thorough examination and rejection of the review application, along with the imposition of costs, reflect the legal intricacies and complexities involved in this case.
|
