Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No. 136/2024
CNR No. DLND01-00-1426-2024
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs
Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd & Ors.
06.06.2025.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
1. The present revision has been preferred impugning the order dated
05.08.2022, whereby the Ld. Magistrate allowed the application of the
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and stayed the proceeding against them.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that Cisco System
Capital India Private Limited (herein after referred as
Complainant/Petitioner) filed a complaint against Trimax IT
Infrastructure and Services Limited (herein after referred as Accused No.
1/Respondent No. 1), Mr. Chandra Prakash Madrecha (herein after
referred as Accused No. 2/Respondent No. 2) and Mr. Madrecha Surya
Prakash (herein after referred as Accused No. 3/Respondent No. 3)
alleging that Respondent No. 1 in discharge of their liability, issued the
cheques Nos. 272820 dated 07.12.2017 which when presented for
encashment returned unpaid due to the reasons “Insufficient Funds”.
Legal demand notice was served on the Respondent but they despite
service did not tender any amount and hence the complaint was filed.
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd & Ors. Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
3. Ld. Magistrate after considering the evidence and the documents
summoned the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I. Act).
During the pendency, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 moved the application
seeking stay of the proceedings till the conclusion of the insolvency
proceedings under the provisions of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code (hereinafter referred as IBC) 2016 initiated by the State Bank of
India. Ld. Counsel submitted that after hearing the application, the Ld.
Trial Court stayed the proceedings vide order dated 05.08.2022, which is
impugned in the present revision.
4. There is delay in filing the revision. Hence, an application under Section
5 of The Limitation Act has been filed. Notice of the revision as well as
the application was sent to the respondents.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent and perused the record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case the arguments
on the application moved by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 were heard and
was allowed on 05.08.2022. Ld. Counsel informed the complainant
accordingly and only after the complainant approached the Counsel, he
had filed the revision. There is a delay of 460 days. It is submitted that
keeping in view that the authorities in the complainant institution has
taken time in preparing the revision resulting into delay. It is prayed that
the delay caused be condoned as it will cause irreparable loss and injury
to the petitioner. The delay is unintentional and bonafide.
7. Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposed the same and submitted that
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd & Ors. Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
delay has to be explained and there is no plausible reason given for delay
in filing the revision. Merely because that the complainant has not taken
the decision in time, whether to file the revision or not, is not a ground to
condon the delay. It is prayed that on this count itself the revision be
dismissed.
8. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon the following
judgments.
Tarlochan Singh and Ors vs Union Bank of India and Ors,
I.A. No. 11281/2012, High Court of Delhi
“…
...
15. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the fact that it is an
admitted position that defendants No. 2 & 3 were being represented by
a counsel in the recovery proceedings, initiated against them by eh
defendant No. 1/Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi and
not only that, on certain occasions, the defendant No. 2 had personally
appeared before the Tribunal. Moreover, the plaintiffs have placed on
record the details of the proceedings of the present case before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore, the defendants No. 2 & 3
cannot claim that they remained blissfully unaware of the status of the
proceedings in the present case.
16. There is merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that the defendants No. 2 & 3 were all along aware of the
present proceedings and chose to remain fence sitters in the hope that
the suit property that had been mortgaged by them with the defendant
No. 1/Bank would remain entangled in prolonged litigation and at a
convenient point in time, they would jump into the fray and seek to
participate in the present proceedings. The fact that the plaintiffs had
filed a criminal complaint against the defendants No. 2 & 3 pursuant
where to an FIR was lodged against them and a criminal case arising
therefrom is pending, where both the defendants have taken bail and
were regularly appearing before the concerned court, is a clear pointer
to the fact that they had deliberately chosen to be active where they
wanted to and had remained inactive when it suited them.
…
…”
9. After hearing arguments and going through the records, I found that there
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd & Ors. Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
must be some reasonable ground to explain the delay. If the person who
has to file the revision is not diligent in pursuing the matter knowing the
pendency of the order passed against him, still not pursuing, is not
entitled to any benefit.
10. In the present case also, the petitioners were aware about the order. It was
also communicated to them promptly by the Ld. Counsel as mentioned in
the application itself. Still, the petitioner has not taken any step for filing
of the revision petition. There is also no reason brought on record as to
what prevented the petitioner in moving the revision petition earlier. The
onus was upon the petitioner to show that there were some reasonable
ground which prevented the revisionist in filing the revision, which are
not there. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to
condone the delay. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is
dismissed.
11. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. The revision is accordingly disposed off.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts/ND/06.06.2025
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd & Ors. Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --