Virender Singh Vs. Deepak Bhatia

Virender Singh vs Deepak Bhatia

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 08, 2013

~8 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/955786

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/955786
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: G.P. Mittal
Decided On: Apr 08, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Virender Singh

Respondent

Deepak Bhatia

Excerpt

.....2013 pronounced on:8. h april, 2013 + crl.l.p. 491/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 492/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 493/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 494/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 495/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 496/2011 virender singh through crl. l.p. nos.491-513/2011 ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 497/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 498/2011 virender singh through ..... petitioner mr.medhanshu tripathi, mr.harish sharma & mr.manoj sehgal, advocates versus deepak bhatia through + ..... respondent mr.randhir jain, mr.dhananjai jain & ms.ruchika jain, advocates crl.l.p. 499/2011 virender singh crl. l.p......

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:

13. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:

8. h April, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 491/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 492/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 493/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 494/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 495/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 496/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 497/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 498/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 499/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 500/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 501/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 502/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 503/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 504/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & + CRL.L.P. 505/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 506/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 507/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Through + Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 508/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 509/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 510/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 511/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 512/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & + CRL.L.P. 513/2011 VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Leave Petitions be registered as Criminal Appeals No.461/2013 - 483/2013.

3. These Appeals arise out of 23 separate judgments of even date whereby 23 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(the Act) were dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate(MM) primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was in the business of advancing loan; he did not possess any money lending licence and thus the complaint was barred under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders Act, 1938 (the Act of 1938). The learned MM opined that although the cheques were issued in discharge of liability or debt, yet in view of the provisions of the Act of 1938, the debts were legally not recoverable. Thus, the learned M.M. dismissed the complaints and acquitted the Respondent.

4. In the 23 complaint cases, various cheques have been issued which are extracted hereunder: Crl.L.P. No. Cheque No. Date of Cheque Amount(in `) 491/2011 000048 10.12.2008 10,000/- 000047 14.12.2008 1,00,000/- 002375 01.09.2008 42,000/- 000001 09.08.2008 30,000/- 000002 08.09.2008 18,000/- 000003 10.09.2008 18,000/- 002423 24.09.2008 44,000/- 007582 24.09.2008 24,000/- 120184 26.11.2008 6,667/- 000032 14.11.2008 7,500/- 000050 26.12.2008 10,000/- 121334 06.01.2009 10,000/- 492/2011 493/2011 494/2011 495/2011 121335 10.01.2009 10,000/- 121336 14.01.2009 10,000/- 121340 02.01.2009 1,00,000/- 207659 05.10.2008 26,700/- 000039 08.11.2008 1,00,000/- 000041 02.12.2008 10,000/- 000049 18.10.2008 10,000/- 000033 21.11.2008 7,500/- 000034 28.11.2008 7,500/- 000035 11.11.2008 7,500/- 000036 26.11.2008 7,500/- 498/2011 002419 16.09.2008 12,000/- 499/2011 000044 21.11.2008 1,00,000/- 000045 28.11.2008 1,00,000/- 000046 07.12.2008 1,00,000/- 007583 25.09.2008 24,000/- 007584 28.09.2008 48,000/- 007585 27.09.2008 30,000/- 002412 04.09.2008 40,000/- 002413 06.09.2008 40,000/- 002411 05.09.2008 40,000/- 000007 12.09.2008 48,000/- 000008 13.09.2008 12,000/- 000009 17.09.2008 12,000/- 496/2011 497/2011 500/2011 501/2011 502/2011 503/2011 09.09.2008 48,000/- 10.09.2008 48,000/- 11.09.2008 36,000/- 000025 03.10.2008 7,500/- 07.11.2008 1,00,000/- 14.11.2008 1,00,000/- 002424 25.09.2008 40,000/- 24.10.2008 16,500/- 207696 28.12.2008 10,000/- 000018 28.10.2008 7,500/- 000026 11.10.2008 7,500/- 000027 20.10.2008 7,500/- 000037 20.11.2008 7,500/- 000010 18.09.2008 18,000/- 000012 25.10.2008 11,000/- 000014 26.10.2008 14,000/- 002418 15.09.2008 12,000/- 002422 23.09.2008 40,000/- 002420 19.09.2008 24,000/- 007591 20.09.2008 10,000/- 007593 03.10.2008 40,000/- 007594 Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 000004 207677 510/2011 36,000/- 000043 509/2011 26.11.2008 000042 508/2011 10,000/- 000004 507/2011 25.12.2008 000004 506/2011 10,000/- 007581 505/2011 15.12.2008 207698 504/2011 207697 02.10.2008 511/2011 09.09.2008 42,000/- 01.10.2008 30,000/- 000019 30.10.2008 30,000/- 000021 03.11.2008 16,500/- 000023 08.10.2008 1,00,000/- 007595 01.10.2008 40,000/- 216765 04.10.2008 21,000/- 216776 11.10.2008 10,500/- 008778 5. 30,000/- 007588 513/2011 28.09.2008 007587 512/2011 007586 26.09.2008 24,000/- To analyse whether the complaints under Section 138 were barred under the provisions of the Act, it will be apposite to extract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1938, which reads as under:

3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless money-lender is registered and licensed. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan, or an application by a money-lender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall after the commencement of this act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of the application for execution; or (b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the application for execution(i) is registered; and (ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner as may be prescribed; or (iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under section 11, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application for execution is presented; or (iv) if he is not a registered and licensed money-lender, satisfies the Court that he has applied to the Collector to be registered and licensed and that such application is pending; provided that in such a case, the suit or application shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the money-lender for registration and grant of license pending before the Collector is finally disposed of.

6. Thus, Section 3 of the Act of 1938 starts with a non-obstante clause and makes the filing of any Suit or any Application for recovery of loan or execution of a decree relating to a loan by a money lender to be not maintainable unless the money lender is registered under the Act and possessed a licence for the same.

7. The loan as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act of 1938 specifically excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory note. The instant cases relate to an advance made by the Petitioner to the Respondent on the basis of the cheque which admittedly is a negotiable instrument. Thus, the bar of Section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted to a loan given on the basis of a negotiable instrument, like a cheque. I am supported in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan & Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657.Thus, the learned MM fell into error in dismissing the complaints and acquitting the Respondent solely on the ground that the complaint was barred under the provisions of the Act of 1938.

8. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same are accordingly set aside.

9. The cases are remanded back to the Court of MM concerned for its decision in accordance with law.

10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM concerned on 30.04.2013.

11. Trial Court record be returned immediately.

12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court.

13. Pending Applications stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 08 2013 pst

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2013 Same Parties Virender Singh vs Deepak Bhatia Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.P. Mittal