TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted, dismissal overturned under Section 138. Condonation of delay emphasized.</h1> <h3>Praveen Otarmal Parmar Versus M/s. Abhiroop Associates, Mr. Uday Raghunath Manerikar</h3> Praveen Otarmal Parmar Versus M/s. Abhiroop Associates, Mr. Uday Raghunath Manerikar - TMI Issues involved:The judgment involves the dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Court of 11th Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, based on the grounds of delay in filing the complaint. The key issues include whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint as time-barred, whether the trial court should have allowed the complainant to explain the delay, and what order should be passed in this regard.Issue 1: Dismissal of Complaint as Time-BarredThe trial court acquitted the respondent due to the complaint not being filed in time after the notice was sent on two occasions. The appellant argued that the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint once the process was issued and the case proceeded. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the delay should have been condoned or the complainant should have been given an opportunity to explain the delay.Issue 2: Opportunity to Explain DelayThe appellant contended that the trial court should have either condoned the delay or allowed the complainant to provide an explanation for the delay. The respondent's counsel supported the trial court's order, stating that there was no obligation on the trial court to condone the delay, especially when the complainant did not request such condonation. The evidence presented during the trial indicated that the notices sent to the accused were not claimed, leading to the delay in filing the complaint.Issue 3: Application of Legal PrecedentsThe judgment referred to legal precedents, including the case of T. S. Muralidhar vs. H. Narayana Singh and K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, to argue the proper approach in cases involving delay in filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the dates of notice issuance, receipt, and the subsequent actions taken by the parties involved in determining the timeliness of the complaint.Separate Judgment by the Court:The Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the complainant the opportunity to seek condonation of the delay in filing the complaint from the date of the cause of action based on the first notice. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings and imposed a cost on the appellant for the delay. The trial court was instructed to decide on the condonation application promptly and dispose of the case within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
