SARSWATI EXPORTS Vs. S.N. KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE has been made in this Misc. Petition to the order dated 20.2.06 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur has dismissed the application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the aforesaid order passed by the learned court below be set aside and the case pending in various courts may be consolidated and tried in one court. The number of cases pending between the parties are said to be 38.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1, which is a firm comprising of two partners, namely Mahesh Choudhary and Smt. Vasu Choudhary, petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively, is engaged in the business of Export of Carpets. The non -petitioner No. 1 is also a firm in which non -petitioners No. 2 and 3 namely Surinder Nath Kapoor and Vikram Kapoor are the partners and the said firm is also engaged in the same business i.e. Export of Carpets, On 1.4.01, an agreement was entered into between petitioner No. 1 through its partners and non -petitioner No. 1 also through its partners whereby non -petitioner No. 1 agreed to serve the petitioners by assisting and supervising in the process of designing, wool selection, wool dying and finishing of Carpets at petitioner's place and also to export 50% of its products. The petitioners had, in return, agreed to pay 10% of invoice value as commission, to be payable after 3 months of the date of cheque. Since 1st April, 2003, it was agreed between the parties that instead of 10% of the invoice value, an amount of 17 lacs was to be paid. The said amount was payable by two cheques of 6 lacs each and one cheque of Rs. 4,14,787/ - after deducting TDS from the remuneration of Rs. 5 lacs to each partner, every month. Consequently, the non -petitioners had got 72 cheques in advance, as given in Annex. 1. The non -petitioner had refused to work from 21st Feb., 2004. The petitioners failed to pursue them to continue with their commitment. The respondents started presenting the cheques before the Bank. The payments of the said cheques were stopped, resulting in dishonour of the same. Consequently, the respondents had filed cases in different courts. Some of the cases have already been consolidated. Later on, an application was also moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for transferring of cases and vide order dated 10.2.05, 15 cases including those six consolidated cases were transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 (Annex. 2).

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of both the parties, and ends of justice would be served if all the cases are consolidated in one Court. Further, he has submitted that earlier also, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had transferred cases of the like nature, pending between the parties, to one Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has in support of his contention, placed reliance on the case of Rajesh Chandra v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1995(3) WLC (Raj.) 707.