SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Kar) 362

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
M. Shivananda Bhoja Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Manipal Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondent:R1, Devi Prasad Shetty, Advocate, R2, Vijay Kumar Majage, HCGP

JUDGMENT :

1. These petitions arise out of separate but identical order/s passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Udupi, whereby, Criminal Revision Petition/s filed under Section 397 read with Section 399 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Code” for short), seeking to set aside the order/s passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Udupi, taking cognizance and directing the accused to appear in the respective case/s were dismissed.

2. Respondent No. 1, Manipal Co-Operative Bank Limited, filed complaint/s, under Section 2(d) and Section 200 of the Code, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the petitioner/s. The complaint/s set out the facts and allegations with regard to the alleged dishonour of the cheque/s issued by the petitioner/s, towards the alleged discharge of legally enforceable debt/s.

3. On receipt of the complaint/s and the affidavit/s filed i.e., in lieu of sworn statement/s of the complainant, upon perusal of the respective complaint/s and the documents annexed thereto, learned Magistrate being of the view, that prima facie, there is sufficient material to issue process against the accus























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled, reversed). The entry describes a legal proposition without reference to how subsequent cases have treated it.

Subramanium Sethuraman VS State Of Maharashtra - 2004 6 Supreme 662: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry states legal principles without mentioning treatment by other decisions.

OM KR. DHANKAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 184: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry outlines legal holdings without subsequent case treatment indicators.

K. K. Patel VS State Of Gujarat - 2000 4 Supreme 160: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry lists ingredients and rulings without references to overruling, following, or other patterns.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top