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

V.K.JAIN
Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Mittal – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Rebecca M. John and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. H. Hariharan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Jain, J.—This order will dispose of the above referred petitions. Petitioner No. 1 Alliance Infrastructure Project Private Ltd., issued a cheque dated 2nd May, 2008 for a sum of Rs.30,86,000 and another cheque of the same date for Rs.12,00,000 in favour of the complainant/respondent. The cheques, when presented for encashment, were returned unpaid with the remarks “signature different”. When the complainant/respondent approached the petitioners in this regard, they issued three other cheques, one for Rs.12,00,000, second for Rs.3,29,000 and the third for Rs.31,91,650 in lieu of the previously dishonoured cheques. The cheques for Rs.12,00,000 and Rs.3,29,000 were encashed when presented to the bank, but the cheque for Rs.31,91,650 was returned unpaid with the remarks “stop payment by the drawer”. A legal notice dated 23rd January, 2009 was sent to the petitioners calling upon them to make payment within 15 days from the receipt of notice. The petitioners, however, did not make the payment whereupon a complaint under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with 141 thereof and also under Section 420 of IPC was filed against them. The petitioners, however, hav

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

Suman Sethi VS Ajay - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 60: Treated as positive or neutral law. Describes a substantive legal principle ("The demand in the notice under S.138 must be for the cheque amount, and any additional claims beyond the cheque amount are severable and do not invalidate the notice.") with no keywords indicating negative treatment such as overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned.

Rahul Builders VS Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical - 2007 7 Supreme 522: Treated as positive or neutral law. Presents "Important Points" affirming requirements for notice under Section 138 ("Section 138 does not speak of a 15 days’ notice. It contemplates service of notice... Unless a notice is served in conformity with Proviso (b)... the complaint petition would not be maintainable."), with no indicators of negative judicial treatment.

Central Bank Of India VS Saxons Farms - 1999 8 Supreme 617: Treated as positive or neutral law. States an "Important Point" validating a specific notice as proper ("Notice intimating that bounced cheque would be represented... would amount to proper valid notice of demand within meaning of Section 138"), lacking any keywords or phrases suggesting it has been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated negatively.

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