Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: M/s Maa Kalka Jewellery House & Anr. v. M/s Agarwal
Jewellers
CNR No.: DLCT01-000868-2025
Crl. Appeal No. 27/2025
19.04.2025
Present : Mr. S. Bharti and Mr. Mohd. Nadeem, Ld. Counsel
for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Mahipal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, partner of respondent.
Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the
respondent by Sh. Ashok Mahipal, Ld. Counsel. Same is taken
on record.
Notably, despite an opportunity being afforded to
the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on the last date of hearing, to
address arguments regarding the maintainability of the
application, seeking exemption for depositing the fine amount,
post the directions having already been issued by this Court on
22.01.2025, no arguments on the said application have been
addressed today. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the appellant
has requested for an adjournment on the ground that he is not
prepared with the arguments.
It is reiterated that at the time when notice was
issued on the present appeal, neither any such application, as
aforesaid was filed by/on behalf of the appellant nor any prayer
made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant on 22.01.2025, seeking
exemption from the depositing the fine. Further, no such
application was annexed with the present appeal as well. In fact,
it was only subsequently, on 17.03.2025 that such an application
was filed.
Markedly, even on 17.03.2025, this Court had
inquired from the Ld. Counsel for the appellant regarding the
Contd..2/-
-- 1 of 2 --
..2..
maintainability of such application, once the direction for deposit
of 20% of the fine amount had already been passed on
22.01.2025. Upon this, Ld. Counsel for the appellant had
submitted that he would place on record, case laws, in support of
his prayer. However, till date, neither any case laws are
forthcoming nor any arguments addressed. On the contrary, as
aforenoted, request for adjournment is again sought today.
Needless to mention that the period of 60 days as provided under
Section 148(2) N.I. Act has already lapsed. Further, Ld. Counsel
for the respondent has submitted that copy of the present
application has not been supplied to him.
Accordingly, under such circumstances, this Court is
left with no other option than to issue notice to the SDM.
Issue recovery warrant against the appellant under
Section 431 read with Section 421 of Cr. P.C. through the
concerned SDM, for recovery of 20% of the fine amount for the
next date of hearing.
In the interest of justice and as prayed for, list for
arguments on 29.07.2025.
Abhishek Goyal
ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
19.04.2025
-- 2 of 2 --