Court prioritizes substantial justice over procedural technicalities, directs full-fledged trial
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside a lower court's dismissal of a condone delay petition, allowing a cheque dishonour case to proceed despite a 100-day delay in filing. The case, M.R.P Finance v. M. Venkatachalam, centers around a disputed cheque for Rs. 6,00,000 issued by the respondent, M. Venkatachalam, to M.R.P Finance.
The decision, delivered by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, emphasized that substantial justice is paramount and can only be achieved through a comprehensive trial that considers both parties' contentions. The court acknowledged the health issues faced by the complainant's former manager, K.S. Kumarraj, as a valid reason for the delay. Kumarraj, who was responsible for filing the complaint, had been bedridden and eventually passed away, which contributed to the delay in filing.
Initially, the Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Tiruppur, had dismissed the delay condonation petition, citing insufficient reasons for the delay. However, the High Court found that the procedural hurdles should not prevent the pursuit of justice, especially when the respondent has not contested the issuance or signature on the cheque.
The court directed the trial court to take the complaint on file and proceed with the trial, underscoring the necessity of a fair hearing and the opportunity for the respondent to present their defense during the trial phase.
In a commendation of public service, the court also appreciated the efforts of Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla, the Legal Aid Counsel representing the respondent, and directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to compensate him for his services.
This ruling reinforces the judicial principle that procedural delays should not overshadow the broader objective of delivering justice, particularly in financial disputes under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 - The court set aside the dismissal of the condone delay petition and allowed the delay to be condoned, emphasizing that substantial justice can be achieved only after a full-fledged trial to consider the contentions of both parties.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138, 142(b)
M.R.P Finance v. M.Venkatachalam, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841215
