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

H.V.G.RAMESH
P. S. Aithala – Appellant
Versus
Ganapathy N. Hegde – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:M.T. Nanaiah, Uday K. Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M/s. Singh and Rani Associates, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

H.V.G. Ramesh, J.—These appeals have been taken up together for disposal since they are arising out of common judgment passed by the XXII Additional. C.M.M. and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore city in C.C. Nos. 18426/03 to 18429/03 by order dated 21.12.2005.

2. The appellant had filed four separate cases against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent drawn on Canara Bank, Mahalakshmi Layout Branch, Bangalore. According to the complainant, he issued a legal notice dated 12.8.2003 by RPAD as well as under Certificate of Posting on 13.8.2003 and despite service there is non-compliance by the respondent to pay the amount, as such, the complaint came to be filed. Along with the complaint, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act r/w Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the complaint. The learned Magistrate, after enquiry has taken up the matter for final disposal and while answering the first issue as to whether the complaint/petition is barred by time, holding that petition is 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