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

2014 Supreme(Bom) 2165

U.V.BAKRE
Sidharth Narayan Siddhapur – Appellant
Versus
Fluidmac – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Ryan Menezes
For the Respondents: R.G. Ramani

Judgment

U.V. Bakre, J.

1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 15-7-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Criminal Revision Application No. 62/2013 and the Judgment and order dated 31-7-2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Quepem ("the J.M.F.C." for short) in Criminal Case No. 34/NI/2010/A.

3. The petitioners are the accused persons whereas respondent No. 1 is the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case.

4. Complainant has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) against the accused persons, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 34/NI/2010/A. The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows:--

Towards supply of goods valued at Rs. 23,77,536/-, made by the complainant to the accused persons, the accused No. 2 issue

















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