AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to reopen Complaint No. 469088/2016, titled 'M/s Golden M P Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs. Neelam Bhalla', which was inadvertently withdrawn from the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate- 02 (South), Saket Court, New Delhi vide the statement made by the complainant on 20.05.2022. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a Chit Fund Company incorporated under the Companies Act, which had filed two Complaint Cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent, Ms. Neelam Bhalla. The first Complaint Case No. 469088/2016 was in regard to the dishonour of cheque in the sum of Rs. 51,13,692/-. The second Complaint Case No. 469085/2016 was in regard to the dishonour of cheque in the sum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the matter was adjourned on one pretext or the other including due the Covid-Lockdown restrictions. 5. As the payments were being regularly made by the respondent No. 2 and also as the petitioner had received substantial amount against the total liabilities, it had closed its Statement of Account in respect of the second Complaint Case. On 20.05.2022, the petitioner on the advice of the Court, chose to withdraw this Complaint, and though intending to withdraw this second Complaint Case involving dishonoured cheque of Rs. 74,000/-, inadvertently, withdrew the first Complaint No. 469088/2016 pertaining to the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 984816 dated 09.07.2012 of Rs. 51,13,692/-. Both the parties remained under the impression that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the settlement talks failed, the petitioner preferred the present Petition. 10. It is submitted that it is evident from the Statement of Account filed by the petitioner that a huge amount is still due and unless the petitioner is allowed to recall and restore his first Criminal Complaint, he would not be able to pursue his remedy to file the Complaint in the Court of Faridabad. Thus, asserting that it was an inadvertent mistake, the petitioner has sought restoration of the first Complaint Case No. 469088/2016. 11. No formal Reply has been filed to the present Petition but it has been vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent that it was evident from the Order dated 26.06.2019 wherein it was recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecovery of the amounts due (to which the two cheques) in question pertain, initiated an arbitration proceeding which resulted in an Arbitration Award in the sum of Rs. 51,64,240/- in favour of the petitioner. The Execution Petition had also been filed for recovery of the Award amount. 14. Thereafter, the two cheques were issued by the petitioner, which got dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds leading to filing of two Complaint cases, one in respect of the cheque in the sum of Rs. 51,13,692/- and the other in regard to cheque for the sum of Rs. 74,000/-. Even while these two Complaints were pending, there were payments being made on behalf of the respondent. That the parties were negotiating for Settlement and the payments wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was an outstanding liability of Rs. 67,60,656/- by the petitioner, is not tenable. Secondly, the petitioner having withdrawn the first Complaint case, approached the Mediation Centre but surprisingly, still did not come to know about the alleged inadvertence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain by asserting that though the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre but no consensus of settlement was arrived at the Mediation Centre, consequently, the mediation failed. 16. It is pertinent to observe that even after the second Complaint was withdrawn on the ground of presenting it in the Court of competent jurisdiction as Faridabad; however, the documents in original were not collected till January, 2023 and ev....