Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation



Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. British Enterprises Present: Shri D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the applicant None for the respondent.


Amar Dutt,J.

Cadila Healthcare Limited is aggrieved by an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala on 16.11.2004 to the following effect:- "Case called upon several times since morning but neither the complainant nor his counsel has put in appearance before the Court. It is already 2.00 P.M. Further wait is not justified, thereof, present complaint is hereby dismissed in default. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance."

Notice of motion was issued to the respondent, who had been served for 16.5.2005 but chose not to put in appearance. Consequently,we deemed it appropriate to call for the record to verify ourselves the various proceedings, which had taken place as the applicant's sole contention was that in a complaint, which had been pending since 1.2.2002, after the applicant's counsel was appearing on every date, the impugned order was unjustified especially in view of the fact that a wrong date had been noted.

The records have been received and since no one puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent even today, we deem it appropriate to grant leave to appeal and peruse the records ourselves.

After perusal of the record, we find that summoning order in this case was passed on 11.7.2002 and the complaint under Section 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 420 IPC had been pending against the respondent since 1.2.2002. On 16.11.2004, the impugned order was passed and the applicant seeks intervention of this Court on the ground that as the absence was owing to wrong noting of the date, the impugned order should be set aside and a direction be issued to the Trial Court to decide the complaint on merits. He relies on the ratio of the judgment reported as Mohd. Azeem Vs. A.Venkatesh and another, (2002) 7 SCC 726.

Having gone through the records, we find that the respondent by avoiding service for the last three years had been able to stall adjudication of the complaint of the applicant. This attitude can hardly be called fair and taking this fact into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that facts and circumstances of the case warrant that the impugned order be set aside and a direction issued to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible from the stage at which the dismissal of the complaint had been ordered. Ordered accordingly.

(Amar Dutt)


July 08 ,2005 (Kiran Anand Lall)

Pa Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.