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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1896

DEEPAK GUPTA
Ramesh Chand – Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Singh Chandel – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
N. K. THAKUR, for Complainant.
RAKESH JASWAL, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT:-

The short question which arises in this petition is whether notice issued to the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was served upon him or whether it can be deemed that such notice was actually served upon him.

2. Without going into the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint according to the complainant the respondent herein had raised a loan of Rs.1.00,000/- from him and had agreed to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. As per the complaint the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.1,54,000/- on 17-9-2000 in favour of the complainant in consideration of the above loan. The complainant presented this cheque through his Bank which was dishonored on 5-10-2000. Thereafter the complainant got issued a notice (Ext.C-3) to the respondent through his lawyer. This notice was issued to respondent-Ravinder Singh Chandel at his admitted address i.e. Village and P.O. Jhanduta, Tehsil Jhanduta, District Bilaspur, H.P. On the reverse of this envelop, there are three endorsements. The first endorsement is in Hindi which reads thus:

"PRAPAT KARTA NEEMAN PAR REHATA HAY" Meaning thereby that the addressee lives on t


















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