Radhika Traders v. Ashtalaxmi Trading Company - S.138 NI Act- Cheque Bounce - Appeal By Complainant

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: M/S Radhika Traders & Ors. v. M/S Ashtalaxmi Trading Company & Anr.
• Neutral Citation: Not explicitly provided in the order, but the Supreme Court diary number is 15289/2025, and the order date is September 15, 2025.

Coram (Judges)

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Judgment Date

• Date: September 15, 2025

Caselaws and Citations

• Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320This case was cited regarding the right of a complainant to appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
• • Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
• • Section 372 (Proviso regarding appeal by victim)
  • Section 378(4) (Special leave to appeal from acquittal)
• General Reference to Limitation Law (regarding the time period for filing appeals)

Question 1: What is the case about?

Answer:The case involves petitions for Special Leave to Appeal against an order remanding a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for fresh consideration by the Trial Court.

Question 2: Who are the parties in the case?

Answer:The petitioners are M/S Radhika Traders & Ors., and the respondents are M/S Ashtalaxmi Trading Company & Anr.

Question 3: What was the original outcome in the Trial Court?

Answer:The petitioners were acquitted by the Trial Court on 23.08.2024.

Question 4: What did the High Court do after the acquittal?

Answer:The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on merits after an appeal by the respondent-complainant.

Question 5: What were the main grounds of challenge by the petitioners?

Answer:The petitioners argued:

• They were not given notice before the remand order.
• The appeal was not maintainable as no leave of the Court was taken.
• The appeal was time-barred and the delay was not condoned.

Question 6: How did the Supreme Court address the issue of notice?

Answer:The Court found the petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings and had engaged counsel, so the argument of lack of notice was rejected.

Question 7: What precedent did the Supreme Court cite regarding the maintainability of the appeal?

Answer:The Court cited Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, holding that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can appeal against acquittal without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Question 8: Was the appeal time-barred?

Answer:No, the appeal was filed within the prescribed time.

Question 9: What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?

Answer:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and directed the Trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously.

Question 10: Which law was the complaint originally filed under?

Answer:The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.