Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29 CC NI ACT / 3615/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. Vs. NEHA KUMARI (14 files)
30 CC NI ACT 3616/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. MANOJ KASHINATH BAWASKAR
31 CC NI ACT / 3617/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. SONALI SANDEEP PAWAR
32 CC NI ACT / 3618/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. KEERTHI S
33 CC NI ACT / 3619/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. SHARAD MISHRA
34 CC NI ACT / 3622/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. KULPREET SINGH SAHNI
35 CC NI ACT / 3624/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. RAKESH KUMAR
36 CC NI ACT / 3625/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. RATNESH KUMAR
37 CC NI ACT / 3626/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. JITIN JHA
38 CC NI ACT / 3627/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. BRIJESH KUMAR GAUTAM
39 CC NI ACT / 3628/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. SATYABRATA GHOSH
40 CC NI ACT / 3629/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. ANMOL GUPTA
41 CC NI ACT / 3630/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. HEMANTH M
42 CC NI ACT / 3631/2025 AKARA CAPITAL ADVISORS P. LTD. VS. RAJEEVLOCHAN CHATURVEDI
11.02.2026
Case received by way of transfer.
Present: Sh. Raunaq Pahal, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Complainant. (through VC)
Physical file furnished.
Ahlmad is directed to check the same and furnish report on NDOH.
Perusal of complaint shows that the present matter has been filed after 01.07.2024 and the same falls
under Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2023 (BNSS). As per Proviso 1 to Section 223 of BNSS, it is mandatory
to hear the proposed accused before taking cognizance. However, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court
in ‘
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S Borcar’, 2025 INSC 1158, the requirement of hearing the accused on the point of
congnizance is dispensed with.
Accordingly, arguments on cognizance and summoning heard on behalf of complainant.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the documents. It is alleged that
accused has executed the ECS Mandate in question in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability which got
dishonored due to insufficient funds. Therefore, demand notice was sent to the accused by the complainant. Despite
service/ deemed service of said notice, accused has failed to make the payment as per provisions of law.
The counsel for the complainant submits that dictum of "A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Anr." (2014) 11 SCC 790 is also applicable to complaints u/s 25 of Payment and Settlement Act, 2007.
In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "...it is a matter of
discretion and the Magistrate is not bound to call upon the complainant to remain present before the court and to
examine him upon oath for taking decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI
Act. For the purpose of issuing process under Section 200 of the Code, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the
verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI
Act..."
Complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents considered in light of above cited judgment. In
opinion of this Court, there is no need to examine the complainant for purpose of issuance of process. In view of
complaint, documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding further against accused person(s) for offence punishable u/s 25 of Payment and Settlement Act, 2007.
Hence, accused/s be summoned through all permissible modes for offence u/s 25 of Payment and
Settlement Act, 2007 on filing of PF/RC within two weeks. In the event the house/office/premises is found to be
locked/refusal to accept the service/any other contingency the process be served through affixation.
Put up for appearance of accused on 30.09.2026.
(Arvind Tomar)
-- 1 of 2 --
JMFC (NI ACT)-07 (Central)/THC
11.02.2026
-- 2 of 2 --