CRL.M.C./675/2015 of M/S SUNBLOSSUM FLORALS LTD & ORS Vs NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD
Parties
- M/S SUNBLOSSUM FLORALS LTD & ORS (PETITIONER)
- NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD (RESPONDENT)
Cites (3)
Statutes cited (24)
- indian penal code, 124a (1860)
- indian penal code, 124a (1860)
- indian penal code, 124a (1860)
- constitution of india, article-19(1)(a) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19 (1950)
- constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
- constitution of india, article-32 (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(1)(a) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19 (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(2) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(2) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(2) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(1)(a) (1950)
- constitution of india, article-19(1)(a) (1950)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 10, 2015
CRL.M.C. 675/2015 & Crl.M.A2589/2015
M/S SUNBLOSSUM FLORALS LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide order of 9[th]February, 2015, petitioners’ evidence has been closed as despite numerous opportunities, no evidence was led by petitioners. The cost imposed upon petitioner was enhanced by the revisional court to `3 lac vide order of 9[th] February, 2015.
While entertaining this petition, petitioners were directed to deposit the cost of `50,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court, which -petitioners have done. Copy of affidavit of petitioners’ witnessSiddhartha Mukherjee has been placed on record as Annexure P-12 and it is submitted on behalf of petitioners that only evidence which is to be led on behalf of petitioners is of Siddhartha Mukherjee and his evidence by
way of affidavit is already on record as Annexure P-12.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders and the affidavit of petitioners’ witness-Siddhartha Mukherjee, I find that recording of petitioners’ evidence is essential for the just decision of this case. Resultantly, impugned orders are hereby quashed and petitioners’ witness- Siddhartha Mukherjee is permitted to step into the witness box before trial court on the date so fixed by the trial court and to depose in terms of aforesaid affidavit (Annexure P-12) and an opportunity to cross-examine this witness be provided by trial court.
Since the complaint in question is of more than decade old, therefore, let trial court pre-pone the date of hearing and fix date in the -month of April, 2015 for cross-examination of petitioners’ witnessSiddhartha Mukherjee. Respondent shall be entitled to cost of `50,000/-, which already stands deposited with the Registrar General of this Court.
Let parties appear before trial court on 24[th] March, 2015 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.
MARCH 10, 2015
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE