ANIL GUPTA Vs. STAR INDIA PVT. LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
July 07,2014
ANIL GUPTA
Appellant
VERSUS
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANIL HADA VS. INDIAN ACRYLIC LIMITED [REFERRED TO]ANEETA HADA VS. GODFATHER TRAVELS AND TOURS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
ANEETA HADA VS. GODFATHER TRAVELS ALIAS TOURS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
GINZER ININFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD AND ORS VS. M S AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PVT LTD AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2017-10-59] [REFERRED TO]DAYLE DE SOUZA VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
R. KRISHNA MOHAN VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-613] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH RASTOGI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH DAMIJA MANORMA DHAMIJA VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT BALSE VS. RANGA KARKERE [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
JAIDEV GUHA @ RAHUL GUHA VS. RAMESH AGARWAL S/O SOHAN LAL AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
BATTULA PARAMESWARA REDDY VS. CHARITY INTERNATIONAL TRUST AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHHAYA ROY AND ORS. VS. KESHAV DAS R. JADWANI AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
B SURENDRA SHIYAL VS. MOHAMMED SADIQ [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-406] [REFERRED]
N. SRINIVASAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA URANGI AND ORS. VS. GREENMINT INDIA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
MICHIEL M. VAN DER MAAT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-598] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SHEHZI VS. GAJANANA ENTERPRISES, INDIAN GAS DISTRIBUTORS [LAWS(KAR)-2023-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
ADV. ARUN SON OF BHIMRAO SHELKE VS. ADV. PRADEEP SON OF PRABHAKARRAO MAHALLE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-401] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-212] [REFERRED TO]
K. RATNA PRABHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHARMA VS. DHARAM DASS PATHANIA [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-256] [REFERRED TO]
M.S.SRINIVASAN VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (BOCW) [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
MICRO BAX (INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR LOHADIYA VS. RAMLAL GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-169] [REFERRED TO]
FAKRUDHIN V.P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-323] [REFERRED TO]
MACI ORGANICS LTD VS. DHINGRA TRADING COMPANY [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-456] [REFERRED]
SURESH ANANDARAO PAWAR VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2017-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT SINGH VS. BALWANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHIDDANA GOUDA VS. MANJULA W/O NARAYAN SAPARE [LAWS(KAR)-2019-3-432] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH AGARWAL VS. PANCHI [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-121] [REFERRED TO]
BINAY PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR DANGE VS. SAROJ THAKUR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI DEEPTHI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2380 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Act') was barred by limitation and quashed the summon order against respondent no.2-Visionaries Media Network (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Company'). It further held that the dispute qua the appellant (petitioner no.2 before High Court) is within limitation and affirmed the summon order against the appellant.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
A subscription agreement was entered into between respondent nos.1 and 2 whereby respondent no.2-Company was appointed as distributor of Star Channels and collecting subscription fee for the same. On 27.12.2003, respondent no.2-Company issued three cheques bearing nos.790913, 790912 and 790911 for Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The aforesaid three cheques were presented before the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and were dishonoured on 6.01.2004. Respondent No.1 served notice on respondent no.2-Company with a demand notice separately for all the three cheques. Respondent no.2-Company replied to the said notice on 20.01.2004 informed respondent no.1 that payments were stopped because of their inability to stop the piracy due to which the cable operators did not make payments.
Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued second notice dated 28.01.2004 on the appellant based on the same facts and based on the same memo of dishonor in respect of the aforesaid three cheques. Respondent no.1 also issued a corrigendum of the same date to the said notice. The appellant submitted reply to the said notice on 3.02.2004.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2380 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Act') was barred by limitation and quashed the summon order against respondent no.2-Visionaries Media Network (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Company'). It further held that the dispute qua the appellant (petitioner no.2 before High Court) is within limitation and affirmed the summon order against the appellant.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
A subscription agreement was entered into between respondent nos.1 and 2 whereby respondent no.2-Company was appointed as distributor of Star Channels and collecting subscription fee for the same. On 27.12.2003, respondent no.2-Company issued three cheques bearing nos.790913, 790912 and 790911 for Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The aforesaid three cheques were presented before the Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and were dishonoured on 6.01.2004. Respondent No.1 served notice on respondent no.2-Company with a demand notice separately for all the three cheques. Respondent no.2-Company replied to the said notice on 20.01.2004 informed respondent no.1 that payments were stopped because of their inability to stop the piracy due to which the cable operators did not make payments.
Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued second notice dated 28.01.2004 on the appellant based on the same facts and based on the same memo of dishonor in respect of the aforesaid three cheques. Respondent no.1 also issued a corrigendum of the same date to the said notice. The appellant submitted reply to the said notice on 3.02.2004.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.