AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel about the passing of the impugned order on 07.12.2016 whereby the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") bearing CC no.22916/2016 titled as Dr. Alok Chopra V Dhruv Verma was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. The petitioner was in constant telephonic contact with the counsel who assured him that his matter is being pursued with due diligence and also assured that during the years 2017-18, the petitioner was being effectively represented. The petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the present complaint for want of prosecution in December, 2018 when he was informed by the counsel about the dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution. The authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l court") whereby the complaint bearing no.22916/2016 titled as Dr. Alok Chopra V Dhruv Verma filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") was ordered to be dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution. 9. The petitioner filed the abovementioned complaint on the basis of the cheques as detailed in the complaint stated to have been signed and issued by the respondent, which upon presentation, got dishonored with the remark "Funds Insufficient" vide cheque returning memo dated 19.01.2011. The respondent did not pay the cheque amount despite the legal notice issued on 24.01.2011. 10. The trial court vide the impugned order had dismissed the complaint bearing C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has admitted his liability by writing a letter to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner, in his written submissions, referred to various dates of hearing and proceedings conducted before the trial court and stated that the respondent was ordered to be summoned vide order dated 22.06.2012. The complaint was adjourned for issuance of summons to the respondent as well as for issuance of court notice to the petitioner which were issued again and again. The petitioner, being a doctor, was unavailable to appear in person and was by assured by the counsel that he would be represented properly. It is argued that the non-prosecution of the complaint was not deliberate as he was assured by h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dates either in person or through any authorized representative including the advocate. The trial court had issued court notice to the petitioner five times. The respondent had appeared on 11 dates of hearing out of the 13 dates. The respondent also gave details of various hearings before the trial court to show that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecution of the complaint. The respondent also gave the litigation history between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has cited judgments passed by the Supreme Court titled as Associated Cement Co. Ltd. V Keshvanand, (1998) 1 SCC 687; M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd. V K. Gopala Krishnaiah, Criminal Appeal No.1523/2014 decided on 16.07.2014; M/s BLS Infrastructure Limited V M/s Rajwant S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.145/2005 is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for decision afresh after issuing the requisite notice to all parties and proceeding with the matter de novo from there. The Labour Court is directed to deal with and decide the matter within six months from today. 15. The present complaint pertains to cheques total amounting to Rs.89,00,000/- which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. There is no dispute by the respondent regarding the fact that the said cheques were signed and issued by him and also regarding the dishonour of the cheques on the ground „Funds Insufficient‟. The petitioner is stated to be a qualified doctor. The petitioner was under the impression that he would be adequately represente....