2022 (2) TMI 1115 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - it is submitted that the present matter relates to the year 2016 and the trial has not proceeded as respondent No. 2 for one reason or the other has deliberately delayed the trial - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.04.2021 would show that the Trial Court, while granting stay on the order dated 06.10.2018 erroneously relied upon Office Order No. 256/RG/DHC/2021 dated 08.04.2021, whereby it was directed that on non-appearance of the parties, no adverse orders be passed against them. It is noted that the said Office Order was passed in continuation of its earlier Office Order dated 20.02.2021. The benefit of the aforesaid Office Order cannot enure in favor of respondent No. 2 as he was declared an absconder on 06.10.2018 i.e., much prior to 20.02.2021 and also in view of the fact that the order dated 06.10.2018 came to be upheld by this Court on 22.03.2021. The respondent s No. 2 earlier petition before this Court also came to be dismissed while noting his conduct in delaying the trial. There is no gainsaying that the impugned order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned MM is not only ex facie bad in law but also in the teeth of the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by this Court and was passed on an erroneous reading of the aforesaid Office Order. During the course of submissions, it is also informed that an earlier petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 was dismissed with a direction to respondent No. 2 to pay cost of ₹ 10,000/ to the petitioner, which has not been paid till date. The respondent No. 2 shall file a written undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the effect that he shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is fixed. The undertaking be filed within a period of one week from today - the respondent No. 2 shall pay an additional cost of ₹ 40,000/-, as well as the previous imposed cost of ₹ 10,000/-, totaling to ₹ 50,000/-, to the petitioner within a period of ten days from today - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned MM (NI Act), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC Nos. 19390-19400/2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Delay in trial proceedings due to respondent No. 2's actions.
3. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement dated 09.05.2019 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
4. Stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' on 06.10.2018.

Issue 1: Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2021
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned MM, alleging that respondent No. 2 deliberately delayed the trial proceedings. The Court noted that respondent No. 2 had a history of non-appearance and delay tactics. The impugned order was found to be erroneous as it erroneously relied on an Office Order that did not apply to the situation. Despite considering setting aside the order, the Court decided against it due to the unique circumstances of the case and the undertaking given by respondent No. 2 to appear before the Trial Court.

Issue 2: Delay in trial proceedings
The delays in the trial proceedings were attributed to respondent No. 2's actions, including continuous absence and attempts to settle the matter without fulfilling commitments. The Court noted the history of non-appearance, issuance of NBWs, and the declaration of respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' on 06.10.2018. Despite various attempts by respondent No. 2 to challenge these orders, they were upheld by the Court, indicating a pattern of delaying tactics.

Issue 3: Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
The parties had entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2019, where respondent No. 2 agreed to pay a certain amount but failed to honor the commitment fully. The Court observed that only a partial payment had been made, highlighting respondent No. 2's failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement. This failure to adhere to the Settlement Agreement further demonstrated respondent No. 2's conduct in evading legal processes.

Issue 4: Stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder'
The Court found that the stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' was not justified, as it was based on an Office Order that did not apply to the situation. The Court emphasized that respondent No. 2 had a history of delaying tactics and non-compliance with legal proceedings, leading to the dismissal of previous petitions challenging the 'absconder' status. Despite respondent No. 2's undertaking to pay costs and appear before the Trial Court, the Court imposed additional costs and directed expedited trial proceedings to conclude the case promptly.