Summary: The Delhi High Court, on February 26, 2026, decided not to cancel a summoning order in a check bounce case involving AEIFORIA Constructions and Continental Carbon India. The court highlighted the importance of issuing criminal summons and chose to let the trial go ahead.
The case began with an agreement on April 1, 2019, between AEIFORIA Constructions and Continental Carbon India. They had agreed on timelines for construction projects and related payments. However, disagreements came up, leading to a security bond on April 9, 2021, where AEIFORIA issued a check for ₹2,24,71,917 as security.
The check given by AEIFORIA was presented by Continental Carbon to be cashed but bounced because there wasn't enough money in the account on July 1, 2020. After this, Continental Carbon sent a legal notice on July 29, 2022, and filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on September 12, 2022.
AEIFORIA, represented by Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, argued that the check was only meant as a backup and not for immediate cashing. They claimed that the project was almost done, and there was no real debt. They criticized the summoning order as automatic and not carefully thought out.
"The check was issued merely as a ‘security’ instrument," argued Mr. Sharma.
Mr. Gauhar Mirza, representing Continental Carbon, disagreed with cancelling the summons. He stated that AEIFORIA admitted to issuing and signing the check, which automatically suggested they owed money under the NI Act. He stressed that whether the check was a backup or not should be decided in a trial.
"The automatic assumption under section 139 of the NI Act works against the petitioners," said Mr. Mirza.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani decided that the summoning order, dated April 29, 2023, should not be cancelled. He noted that even though the order didn't have detailed reasons, the complaint and supporting documents were enough for the trial to continue.
"Issuing summons in a criminal case is a very serious matter," the court noted, referring to the Supreme Court’s careful advice.
The court rejected the request to cancel the summons and lifted the pause on proceedings. The trial will carry on under the guidance of the Magistrate, ensuring all legal steps are followed.
