LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-265

Y. MADHUSUDAN RAO Vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD.

Decided On August 17, 2006
Y. Madhusudan Rao Appellant
V/S
HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act against the petitioner herein. During the pendency of those proceedings settlement was arrived at between the parties as per which the petitioner agreed to settle the case for a total sum of Rs. 4 lacs. This amount was to be paid in four instalments of Rs. 1 lac each. The Trial Court, in these circumstances, has re corded statement in its order dated 3.7.2006 and has adjourned the case to 15.11.2006 as last instalment is to be paid by 7.11.2006. In this order while re cording the aforesaid settlement, the Trial Court also observed as under :-

(2.) THERE is a default on the part of the petitioner in making payment of the very first instalment which was due on 5.8.2006. Reason given by the petitioner is that in the meantime the petitioner's banker has initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation Act and has seized some of the assets of the petitioner. Be as it may the petitioner, in these circumstances, apprehends that the learned MM made, in view of the aforesaid observations, issue non-bailable warrants against him. Submission of the learned counsel is that such a course cannot be adopted in these proceedings merely because of failure on the part of the petitioner to adhere to the settlement terms, as non-bailable warrants can be issued under Section 87 of the Cr.P.C. and it does not impose such eventuality. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Court on its own motion v. CBI,. As it appears that the petitioner, for whatever reason, has committed breach of the agreement between the parties, the only course open to the learned Trial Court is to proceed with the matter on merits. However, for such a breach non-bailable warrants cannot be issued. Therefore, it is made clear that the Trial Court shall not issue non-bailable warrants on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in not making the payment. It would, however, be open to the lamed MM to proceed with the matter and pass any other order that may be admissible in law. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Dasti.