AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1996 INSC 227
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1996 INSC 227
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent-Company, after inviting tenders, executed an agreement on 13-4-1969 for execution of a project. Subsequently, it issued three post-dated cheques—each for Rs 6,87,100—dated between May and July 1989. All three cheques were dishonoured. After service of statutory notice, the appellant instituted civil suits to recover the amounts. Parallel criminal proceedings were also initiated by lodging three complaints (CC Nos. 219, 220 and 254 of 1989) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

In Civil Revision No. 209 of 1994, a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court ordered that the civil suits be stayed until completion of the criminal cases. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC constitutes a valid ground to stay parallel civil suits for recovery based on the same cheques.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that criminal proceedings do not bar or impede the progress of civil suits arising from the same transaction. It observed that while courts may, in rare and compelling situations, stay criminal proceedings, it is almost unprecedented for courts to stay civil suits on the ground of pending criminal cases. The High Court’s premise—that allowing the civil suits to proceed would compel the accused to disclose their defence in the criminal trial—was deemed legally erroneous. Moreover, the Court noted that the defendants had already filed their written statements in the civil suits, rendering the High Court’s concern moot. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the stay order unsustainable and held that nothing further survived in the matter.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; High Court’s order staying the civil suits is set aside.

Immediate Effect: The civil suits for recovery may proceed without awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings do not automatically stall related civil actions and does not announce any new rule of law.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    State Of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. And Others

    Order

    1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned Single Judge made in Civil Revision No. 209 of 1994 on 16-11-1994 of the High Court of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the respondent-Company after inviting tenders had executed an agreement on 13-4-1969 for execution of the project. Thereafter, three post dated cheques of dates between May and July 1989 were given for a sum of Rs 6,87,100 each of which got bounced. After issuing said notice, the suits were filed for recovery. Simultaneously, proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also under Section 420 IPC in three complaints, CCs Nos. 219, 220 and 254 of 1989. The High Court stayed the proceedings of the civil suits pending disposal of the criminal cases. This appeal came to be filed against the said order.

    3. It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with the offence punishable under the Act. On the other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of their power. We have never come across stay of any civil suits by the courts so far. The High Court of Rajasthan is only an exception to pass such orders. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the accused would be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit. It is not a correct principle of law. Even otherwise, it no longer subsists, since many of them have filed their defences in the civil suit. On principle of law, we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since the defence has already been filed nothing survives in this matter.

    4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. And Others
    (Feb 12, 1996)