logo
34 digital cheque bounce courts in Delhi move to Rouse Avenue complex, minus staff

34 digital cheque bounce courts in Delhi move to Rouse Avenue complex, minus staff

Indian Express05-06-2025
The judges of 34 digital NI Act (Negotiable Instruments Act) courtrooms, which hear cheque bounce cases, across six court complexes in Delhi have been shifted to the Rouse Avenue court complex. However, the court staff (readers, ahlmads and stenographers) will continue to operate from their respective districts.
Of the 34 courtrooms, nine are from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma Court, four from Rohini, and three from Patiala House Court.
On Friday, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya inaugurated the 34 digital courts at the Rouse Avenue complex to exclusively hear cases under the NI Act.
An administrative order passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Kanwal Jeet Arora of Rouse Avenue Court read: 'The following judicial officers shall occupy and hold their courts in court room numbers mentioned against their names with immediate effect.'
'As per the directives of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, vide notification… dated 30.05.2025, the courts shall continue to be under the administrative control/supervision/ jurisdiction of the districts concerned to which these courts belong,' the order dated May 31 stated.
This essentially means that while the court staff will operate from their respective districts, all judges will have to sit in Rouse Avenue Court. All rooms have been allotted on the seventh floor of the court complex, which is situated near the ITO Metro in Central Delhi.
In a May 30 notification, the Delhi High Court cited 'optimal utilisation of available infrastructure and resources' and 'inadequate space' to justify the move. 'The remaining arrangement, including support staff deployment and recording of evidence from the respective District Court Complexes, shall continue as per the previous directions/practice until adequate and permanent space is made available in the concerned District Courts to which these Digital NI Act Courts ultimately belong,' the notification read.
'However, these Courts shall continue to be under the administrative control/supervision/jurisdiction of the concerned districts to which these courts belong. The readers, ahlmads, and judicial records of these Digital NI Act Courts would also continue to function from their original districts so as to avoid any inconvenience to the litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders,' it added.
'We are being told that only judges have been moved to Rouse Avenue Court, but a circular outside a courtroom states that all matters will be physically taken up at Rouse Avenue,' Dhir Singh Kasana, advocate and former Saket Bar Association secretary, told The Indian Express.
'If lawyers situated in Saket have to travel to Rouse Avenue, it will cause a big problem… There should be some clarity. There are no chambers in Rouse, while we have those in Saket. There was no space crunch in Saket Court…these courtrooms already existed in our district,' said Kasana.
At court complexes across Delhi, 800 judges are hearing close to 15 lakh pending cases (2 lakh civil and 13 lakh criminal). Of these, 4.5 lakh or over 30 per cent are cases related to cheque bounce claims.
On any given day, NI Act courts hear a minimum of 50 cases and a maximum of 200 cases, and have six times the average pendency of other courts. As per the Act, cheque bounce cases ought to be disposed of within six months.
The staff in the NI Act courts are among the most burdened across Delhi's judiciary. 'Twice a month, we might have to travel to Rouse. In case a judge asks for a document or case file, we might have to physically deliver it,' a court staff member told The Indian Express.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty
Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty

Economic Times

time10 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty

The Delhi High Court has asked Yasin Malik to respond to the National Investigation Agency's request for the death penalty. This relates to a terror funding case. The court has given Malik four weeks to respond. The hearing is scheduled for November 10. Malik is currently serving a life sentence in Tihar jail. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Delhi High Court on Monday sought separatist leader Yasin Malik 's response on a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur granted four weeks to Malik to file his response to the NIA's court posted the hearing for November who previously sought to argue in-person against NIA's plea seeking the enhancement, was supposed to appear virtually from jail but wasn't Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief (JKLF) is lodged in Tihar jail where he is serving a life term in the high court noted that neither Malik was produced virtually in the proceedings from jail nor he filed his reply to NIA's plea in pursuance to the court's August 9, 2024 August 9, Malik was directed to be produced virtually and not physically due to security Monday, the bench directed the jail authorities to produce him virtually on November last year turned down the court's suggestion to appoint a lawyer on his behalf and said he wished to argue the case May 29, 2023, the high court issued notice to Malik on the NIA's plea seeking death jail authorities filed an application seeking permission for his virtual appearance on grounds that he was a "very high-risk prisoner" and it was imperative to not physically produce him in court to maintain public order and request was allowed by the high May 24, 2022, a trial court sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after holding him guilty for offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and had pleaded guilty to the charges, including those under the UAPA, and was convicted and sentenced to life against the sentence, the NIA emphasised that a terrorist cannot be sentenced life term only because he has pleaded guilty and chosen not to go through seeking enhancement of the sentence to death penalty, the NIA said if such dreaded terrorists are not given capital punishment on account of pleading guilty, there would be complete erosion of the sentencing policy and terrorists would have a way out to avoid capital trial court, which rejected the NIA's plea for death penalty, had said the crimes committed by Malik struck at the "heart of the idea of India" and were intended to forcefully secede Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India. PTI

Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty
Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought separatist leader Yasin Malik 's response on a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case . A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur granted four weeks to Malik to file his response to the NIA's petition. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program The court posted the hearing for November 10. Malik, who previously sought to argue in-person against NIA's plea seeking the enhancement, was supposed to appear virtually from jail but wasn't produced. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief (JKLF) is lodged in Tihar jail where he is serving a life term in the case. Live Events The high court noted that neither Malik was produced virtually in the proceedings from jail nor he filed his reply to NIA's plea in pursuance to the court's August 9, 2024 order. On August 9, Malik was directed to be produced virtually and not physically due to security threats. On Monday, the bench directed the jail authorities to produce him virtually on November 10. Malik last year turned down the court's suggestion to appoint a lawyer on his behalf and said he wished to argue the case in-person. On May 29, 2023, the high court issued notice to Malik on the NIA's plea seeking death penalty. Subsequently, jail authorities filed an application seeking permission for his virtual appearance on grounds that he was a "very high-risk prisoner" and it was imperative to not physically produce him in court to maintain public order and safety. The request was allowed by the high court. On May 24, 2022, a trial court sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after holding him guilty for offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. Malik had pleaded guilty to the charges, including those under the UAPA, and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appealing against the sentence, the NIA emphasised that a terrorist cannot be sentenced life term only because he has pleaded guilty and chosen not to go through trial. While seeking enhancement of the sentence to death penalty, the NIA said if such dreaded terrorists are not given capital punishment on account of pleading guilty, there would be complete erosion of the sentencing policy and terrorists would have a way out to avoid capital punishment. The trial court, which rejected the NIA's plea for death penalty, had said the crimes committed by Malik struck at the "heart of the idea of India" and were intended to forcefully secede Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India. PTI

Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in criminal defamation case by Delhi L-G Saxena
Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in criminal defamation case by Delhi L-G Saxena

The Hindu

time2 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in criminal defamation case by Delhi L-G Saxena

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) confirmed a Delhi High Court decision upholding the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant General of Delhi, in 2001. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh however set aside an order directing Ms. Patkar, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh and advocate Abhimanue Shreshta, to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation. The apex court also modified a probation order imposed on her and directed her to furnish bonds in order to exempt her from prison sentence. The Bench removed conditions of supervision of Ms. Patkar. 'Once the appellate court (High Court) applied the parameters of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code to grant probation, it could not have applied provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, much less the requirement for supervision by the Probation Officer under Section 4 (3) or the grant of compensation. The only permissible condition under Section 360 was to release the petitioner (Patkar), with or without surety, and no other condition was legally tenable,' Mr. Parikh argued. Ms. Patkar was alleged to have emailed a press note on November 24, 2000 allegedly to Dilip Gohil, a correspondent. The latter had published an article in Gujarati which Mr. Saxena claimed to be defamatory to him. Mr. Parikh argued for setting aside the conviction, noting that the High Court had upheld the conviction despite disbelieving two crucial witnesses. The email, projected as key proof, was not certified as admissible as evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the apex court stood firm by its decision to not intervene in the conviction. The High Court had upheld the conviction of Ms. Patkar on July 29. Mr. Saxena had been heading the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties at the time of the defamation complaint.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store