Common Order For Summoning In Different Cases Cannot Be Passed When Parties Are Unrelated: Delhi High Court

A Single Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra quashed a common summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in three cases, cases wherein the Complainant i.e., Kanika Investments Ltd. was same but the accused were different.

The order was quashed on two counts:

(i) The parties so summoned, were unrelated;

(ii) in one of the cases, the offence alleged against the accused related to dishonour of a NACH mandate (Electronic Fund Transfer), which is covered under section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Act 2007, but the Trial Court made no observation as to its applicability.

As per the facts of the case, whereas two cases in which common summons was issued related to Section 138 of the NI Act, the third case pertained to offence under Section 138 NI Act, read with Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Act, 2007.

The Bench observed,

"In the circumstances, as observed herein above that no common order as the order dated 11.3.2019 qua CC No. 1565/19 with CC Nos. 1566/19 and 1567/19 could have been passed by the learned Trial Court in the circumstances, where the parties to the case also differ and where it was incumbent on the learned Trial Court to ascertain the applicability of the provisions of Payment & Settlements Systems Act, 2007, to the averments made to the complaint in CC No. 1565/19…"

The observation was made in view of a submission set forth by the Petitioner in the third case, that the procedure prescribed for determination of liability under the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 is not completely in pari materia with the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court said,

"it was also essential for the learned Trial Court to consider the aspect of the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act, 2007, read with the terms of the contours of the complaint in CC No. 1565/19, in as much as it has been submitted specifically on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be tried, if required, to be so tried under the appropriate provisions of law."

The impugned summoning order were thus set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with directions to consider the aspect of summoning or otherwise afresh, qua the applicability of the Payment & Settlements Systems Act, 2007 r/w Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Petitioner was represented by Advocate Anujj Chauhan; Respondent by Advocate Kamal Kumar.

Case Title: Vikas Bajaj & Anr. v. M/s Kanika Investments Ltd.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order