Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Right to Reason is Indispensable: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Order on Condonation of Delay in Section 138 NI Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, which condoned the delay in filing a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The judgment, delivered by Justice Karamjit Singh, stresses the necessity for detailed judicial reasoning that reflects a proper application of mind. The matter has been remanded for a fresh decision with appropriate judicial reasoning.

The case involves Sovika Aviation Services Private Limited and others (petitioners) against the State of Haryana and Tata SIA Airlines Limited (respondent). The dispute arose from a cargo agreement dated January 1, 2015, which included multiple addendums. Sovika Aviation Services allegedly defaulted on its obligations, leading Tata SIA Airlines to terminate the agreements and issue several post-dated cheques. Upon their dishonor, a legal notice was issued, and after non-payment within the statutory period, a criminal complaint was filed on July 1, 2022, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Need for Detailed Reasoning: The High Court, led by Justice Karamjit Singh, noted that the trial court’s order dated January 17, 2023, allowing the condonation of delay, was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. Justice Singh stated, “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before the court.”

Precedents and Legal Framework: The judgment referred to several precedents, including Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) and Jindal Steel and Power Limited v. Ashoka Alloy Steel Limited (2006), emphasizing that judicial decisions must be well-reasoned. The court reiterated that condonation of delay under the NI Act requires the court to be satisfied with the cause for delay, necessitating a detailed rationale.

COVID-19 Pandemic Considerations: The respondent argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, referencing the Supreme Court’s suo moto cognizance for the extension of limitation periods. The Supreme Court orders dated March 23, 2020, and subsequent orders extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, which was considered by the respondent as sufficient cause for the delay.

The High Court scrutinized the trial court’s order and found it deficient in detailing the reasoning behind condoning the delay. It emphasized that the trial court must assess the cause of delay comprehensively and articulate its reasoning clearly in the order. Justice Singh remarked, “The application of mind and the provision of reasons are fundamental to judicial decisions, particularly in matters involving condonation of delay under the NI Act.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the necessity for detailed judicial reasoning in orders condoning delays in filing complaints under the NI Act. By remanding the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision, the judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and thoroughness in judicial processes. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that condonation of delay is granted only with substantial and well-articulated reasons, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial system.

Date of Decision: 31st May 2024

Sovika Aviation Services Private Limited and others vs. State of Haryana and Another

Similar News