Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Swift Trial in ₹3.6 Lakh Loan Dispute

02 September 2024 8:15 PM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has mandated the swift resolution of a financial dispute involving a dishonored cheque, reinforcing the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Justice N.S. Shekhawat delivered the judgment, underscoring the necessity of quick judicial proceedings to uphold fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In 2018, Anish Mehra, the petitioner, provided Sunil Jha, the respondent, with a friendly loan of ₹3,60,000. Jha assured repayment by November 1, 2019. However, despite numerous requests, he failed to repay the amount. Subsequently, Jha issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Mehra then filed a complaint (COMA-7558-2021) on March 18, 2021, in the Ludhiana Judicial Magistrate’s court. The trial faced significant delays due to Jha’s repeated exemption applications and non-appearances.

Justice Shekhawat highlighted the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial, citing numerous Supreme Court rulings that stress the importance of expeditious judicial proceedings. “The right to a speedy trial is an essential facet of the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21,” he remarked, referencing landmark judgments such as Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak.

The court extensively cited the Supreme Court’s decisions, emphasizing that delays in trial proceedings undermine the accused’s right to fair justice and can cause undue anxiety and distress. The ruling reiterated that this right begins with the initial arrest and continues through all judicial stages, including investigation, inquiry, trial, and appeal. The bench also noted that undue delays could impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves effectively.

The court directed the trial court to resolve the complaint within one year, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to preventing prolonged litigation. “The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers to effectuate the right to a speedy trial,” Justice Shekhawat asserted.

“The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta and is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21,” the judgment read. It further noted, “The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive for the expeditious disposal of Anish Mehra’s complaint against Sunil Jha reinforces the judiciary’s dedication to upholding the right to a speedy trial. By ensuring that the trial concludes within a stipulated time frame, the judgment emphasizes the importance of timely justice, reducing undue distress for the parties involved. This decision is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional safeguards designed to protect citizens’ fundamental rights.

Date of Decision: July 31, 2024

Anish Mehra vs. Sunil Jha

Latest Legal News