9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaya Karan, Adv., Mr. Vishal, Adv. And Ms. Madhulika, Adv. JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The facts of this case bring to light a situation marked by a persistent disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal and financial obligations. The behaviour of the Petitioner stands as a testament to how an individual's nonchalant attitude towards financial responsibilities and court orders can undermine the essence of judicial efficacy. 2. The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant's continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and suspension of sentence. This decision, reflecting the frustration of the legal system with repeated non-compliance, sets the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 10 (ten) months each. II) Both accused shall also to pay in total Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and ten lakhs only) as compensation to Complainant vide provisions under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within 3 months. In default to suffer further Simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each. III) Cash security of Rs. 3000/- of accused no.2 shall stand continued till appeal period is over and P.R. bond of accused no.3 stands cancelled...." 6. Three appeals jointly filed by the appellant, the intervenor as also AGPL were dismissed by the Sessions Court vide common judgment and order dated 30.01.2014. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 9. As per the undertaking, Rs. 2 crores was to be paid on or before 30th September, 2018, in addition to Rs. 25 lakhs which was paid on the date of passing of the order. Remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore 65 lakhs was to be paid on or before 15th March, 2019. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the High Court on 20th March, 2019 by which time they had paid only Rs. 82 lakhs. Further time was sought to pay the balance amount till 20th April, 2019. The counsel for the complainant pointed out that the amount due was Rs. 1,69,10,000/-. The High Court on 20.03.2019 extended the time for payment of Rs. 1,69,10,000/- till 20th April, 2019 and further provided that if the said amount was not paid then the order granting bail and also suspending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 83,10,000/- and has, therefore, claimed that the complainant would be entitled to receive Rs. 83,10,000/- along with compound interest @ 12% p.a. from 15th March, 2019 till actual payment is made along with costs against the appellant as also the intervenor. 13. The intervenor has also filed his response and according to him the partnership between the appellant and the intervenor was in the ratio of 60:40 and that they had actually agreed to pay the settled amount of Rs. 4,63,50,000/- in that proportion as per their shares in the firm. It is also his case that the amount of Rs. 73,50,000 had been paid by him alone prior to 03.07.2018 during the time when the appeal was pending before the Sessions Court and, therefore, he was entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The intervenor was hurriedly made to sign the undertaking on the date it was being filed i.e. 03.07.2018 and he trusted the appellant and the lawyer who was appearing for both of them. It is further stated that the intervenor has also filed before the High Court by way of a modification application to deal with this aspect of the matter, which application is still pending. 15. We have perused the undertaking dated 03.07.2018 as also the order dated 03.07.2018 and also the subsequent orders passed by the High Court. It is apparent from the same that the complainant was entitled to receive a total amount of Rs. 4,63,50,000/-. The undertaking as also the order dated 03.07.2018 clearly mention that both of them will pay the amount equally as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.07.2018 but also of the order of the Trial Court dated 26.08.2011. He agreed to receive a much lesser amount than he was entitled to under the order of the Trial Court. He has been litigating since 2007 almost 16 years by now. 19. We, accordingly, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent No. 2 (Complainant) within four weeks from today. It is clarified that this amount of costs will not be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the respondent No.2 but will be in addition to it. 20. It is further directed that the appellant and the intervenor to surrender within a period of four weeks from today to undergo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
