S.M.MODAK
Rambhau Tulsiram Bhusari – Appellant
Versus
Assanand Dhanumal Vensiani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. M. Modak, J.
In this appeal after hearing the appellant, I have dictated the order on 27-09-2019 by sitting on the dais. At that time, I have decided to allow the appeal. However, prior to signing the order, another view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey and another, (2014) 10 SCC 713 came to my notice.
2. So, I have brought it to the notice of learned Advocate for the appellant on 11-10-2019. Learned Advocate Shri Tiwari accepted his fault in not bringing it to my notice the ratio laid down in Yogendra's case (supra). According to him, it was due to oversight and it was unintentional. I have accepted it. Then Shri Tiwari argued the matter afresh and relied upon number of judgments. On this background, now I am dealing with the controversy on the basis of the latest view.
Background of appeal
3. The appeal was filed in this Court on the background of acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (for short, 'N.I. Act'). The present appellant filed Criminal Complaint
A. Chinnaswami vs. M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another
Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others vs Narayana Reddy and others
Gopal Das Sindhi and others vs. State of Assam and another
Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Govardhan Das Bartani
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd
Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and another
Vinay Kumar Shailendra vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.