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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1481

S.P.KUKDAY
Om Gayatri and Co. – Appellant
Versus
State of maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

( 1 ) HEARD. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have impugned order dated 20. 6. 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision no. 24/2002, allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 14. 1. 2000 passed by chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint in S. C. C. No. 1150/ 1997.

( 3 ) THE facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that: Respondent no. 2 is engaged in a wholesale business of selling Dal to the customers on credit basis. Petitioner was a regular customer. For the purpose of clearing the dues, the petitioner issued cheque No. 495330 drawn on Punjab national Bank, Nanded on 25. 4. 1997 for Rs. 21. 010/ -. The cheque was deposited by Respondent no. 2 in Peoples Cooperative Bank, hingoli on 25. 4. 1997. He was however, informed that the cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, notice as required by proviso (b) to section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was served but as payment was not made, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded on 20. 6. 1997 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negot













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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