Anil Kumar Malhotra v. Axis Bank Ltd.

CRM-M-55069-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55069-2024 Date of Decision: 29.11.2024 Anil Kumar Malhotra ....Petitioner

Versus

Axis Bank ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Manan Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the respondent-Bank.

***** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Seeking quashing of summoning order dated 18.09.2023 in COMA#5973/2022-"Axis Bank Ltd. vs. Stan Cars Pvt. Ltd. and others, whereby summons have been issued only to the Directors and not the company, petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023. 2.

On 11.11.2024, this Court had passed the following order:- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-53864-2024, as facts of both cases are similar. Perusal of the order dated 18.09.2023 clearly reflects that all the accused were summoned including the company. Petitioner to explain this aspect on the next date.

List on 29.11.2024."

3.

Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this Court to last paragraph of the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, which reads as follows:- "Accordingly, all the accused (accused no.2 and 3 being the directors of the accused no.1) are ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on filing of PF, copy of complaint for 12.12.2023 ANJU RANI 2024.12.02 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-55069-2024  Summons be sent through RC/BNPL as well as through ordinary process. Dasti be taken, if desired. List of witnesses be also filed forthwith and positively within 7 days, failing which complainant cannot seek any assistance from the Court."

4.

Petitioner's counsel submits that words mentioned in bracket i.e. accused no.2 and 3 being the directors of the accused no.1, clearly shows that only these two were summoned, whereas it is incorrect reading of the order because it was an explanation offered by the concerned Judge and order is clear as word is "all the accused".

5.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if need arises. 6.

Given above, petition is disposed of as having been withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.11.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable?

No ANJU RANI 2024.12.02 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh