Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29 CC NI ACT / 5881/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. SHOEB AUTO MOBILE
30 CC NI ACT / 5882/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. YADAV ENTERPRISES
31 CC NI ACT / 5883/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. PRARAMBH CONSTRUCTIONS
32 CC NI ACT / 5884/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. PARTH WATER SPLAYERS
33 CC NI ACT / 5885/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. JANHAVI MOBILE SHOP
34 CC NI ACT / 5886/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. S S MARKETING
35 CC NI ACT / 5887/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. ELECTRONICA STORE
36 CC NI ACT / 5888/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. MEENA KIRANA
37 CC NI ACT / 5889/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. BABULAL
38 CC NI ACT / 5890/2026 UGRO CAPITAL Vs. UMED GARMENTS
39 CC NI ACT / 5891/2026 UGRO CAPITAL Vs. ROSHAN BANNER
40 CC NI ACT / 5892/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. A N TRADERS
41 CC NI ACT / 5893/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. SATYAM
42 CC NI ACT / 5894/2026 UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. AMAN KHAN KIRANA STORE
20.05.2026
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Sh. Mohit Jain, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. (through VC)
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 cognizance
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 (including dasti) for offence u/s 25
of Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 on filing of PF/RC within one month. 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 25.02.2027.
(Arvind Tomar)
JMFC (NI ACT)-07 (Central)/THC
20.05.2026
-- 1 of 1 --