Jmk Technology Pvt. Ltd v. M/S R.A. Santana Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd

CRM-M No. 39429 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 39429 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.12.2024 JMK Technology Pvt. Ltd.

...PeƟƟoner

Versus

M/s R.A. Santana MarkeƟng Services Pvt. Ltd.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Appeal No.

CRA-137-2024 dated 16.03.2024 Ɵtled "JMK Technology v/s M/s R.A. Santana"

1.

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by AddiƟonal Sessions Judge, Gurugram whereby order dated 18.03.2024 i.e. order of suspension of sentence was re-called because of non-compliance of terms and condiƟons of such order, peƟƟoner has come up before this Court under SecƟon 528 BNSS, 2023 challenging the said order.

2.

Vide order dated 18.03.2024 while suspending the sentence of peƟƟoner, the AddiƟonal Sessions Judge directed the peƟƟoner to make payment of 20% of compensaƟon. Compliance was not made regarding payment of 20% of the compensaƟon amount as such order of suspension of sentence was revoked. 3.

Feeling aggrieved, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court. 4.

On the last date of hearing, this Court directed the peƟƟoner to demonstrate his financial capacity by declaring the assets. In compliance of the said order, notarized affidavit has been handed over to the respondent-complainant and photocopy is taken on record.

5.

I have gone through the net worth of the peƟƟoner and even counsel for the respondent claims to have gone through the same. Jyoti Sharma 2024.12.10 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRM-M No. 39429 of 2024 6.

Perusal of the same reflects that peƟƟoner is not in a posiƟon to deposit 20% of the amount, therefore, it is a case where because of the financial incapacity, peƟƟoner's right of suspension of sentence cannot be taken away. 7.

Counsel for complainant submits that in the prayer clause, Annexure P-3 has not been challenged, however there was no reason to challenge the same because his substanƟve rights were defeated by Annexure P-4 and not Annexure P-3. 8.

Given above, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is quashed and set aside. Sentence of the peƟƟoner shall remain suspended in terms of order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Appellate Court, however, deposit of 20% of compensaƟon amount is exempted at this stage. In the enƟrety of facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court is requested to expedite the hearing. Relief is given to the peƟƟoner due to his financial incapacity and is subject to the condiƟon that peƟƟoner shall not seek any adjournment before the appellate Court. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.12.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2024.12.10 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh