2020 (1) TMI 1102 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - restraint on plaintiffs to not to proceed with other coercive proceedings against the Defendants in respect of the dues claimed in the suit - HELD THAT - The power to pass orders to do complete justice is undoubtedly vested in the Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, a Civil Court exercising original jurisdiction is constrained to act within the boundaries of the CPC and where it is a Court exercising the original jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, additionally by the Delhi High Court Act,1966. A Court exercising civil jurisdiction cannot obviously pass orders in relation to the powers and jurisdiction of a Criminal Court or any other Tribunal/adjudicatory body - it is for the Courts exercising their respective jurisdictions viz., the Court of the learned Magistrate dealing with the complaint under Section 138 NI Act or the NCLT dealing with petitions before it or contempt proceedings arising from those proceedings, to deal with the submissions that the parties before those Courts may make, and pass appropriate orders. In the present matter it will be open to the Respondents to place the facts and developments in the civil suit before the Court dealing with the complaint under Section 138 NI Act and seek orders before that Court. Equally the Appellants in the present appeal would resist those pleas. All such submissions will have to be considered by the Court concerned. It is not for the learned Single Judge hearing the civil suit to anticipate what might happen in those proceedings and preventively restrain such further proceedings. This Court holds that to the extent that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge seeks to restrain the Appellants/Plaintiffs from continuing other coercive proceedings, which include the proceedings pending in the various Courts under Section 138 of the NI Act, the contempt proceedings, the proceedings before NCLT and the execution proceedings, the impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction, ex facie illegal and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impleadment of 125 Plaintiffs in an appeal.
2. Interpretation of an interlocutory order restraining coercive proceedings.
3. Maintainability of appeal against an interim order.

Impleadment of 125 Plaintiffs:
The judgment addressed an application seeking to implead 125 Plaintiffs as co-Appellants in an appeal. The Court allowed the application after considering that the Applicants were Plaintiffs in the suit, ensuring the amended memo of parties was taken on record.

Interpretation of Interlocutory Order:
The appeal challenged an interlocutory order restraining coercive proceedings initiated by the Plaintiffs under various laws. The Appellants contended that the order restraining these proceedings, including actions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and before the National Company Law Tribunal, was without jurisdiction. The Respondents argued for the restraint to ensure pro rata disbursal of deposited amounts. The Court held that the order restraining coercive proceedings was illegal and unsustainable, emphasizing that the civil court cannot interfere with the jurisdiction of other adjudicatory bodies.

Maintainability of Appeal:
The Respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal against an interim order. The Court referred to legal precedents and highlighted that an appeal could be entertained against an order if it was ex facie legally erroneous. The Court found the challenged portion of the order to be legally erroneous, thus making the appeal maintainable. The judgment clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of other pending proceedings and directed the continued proceedings in the suit for the disbursal of deposited monies.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the detailed legal reasoning provided by the Court in addressing each matter.