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

BUDIHAL R.B.
Mruthunjaya D. Hulgur – Appellant
Versus
M. Vijayakumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri Ashok B. Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Budihal R.B., J.—This appeal is preferred by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.3.2013 passed by the XIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.12053/2009. By the said judgment, the respondent-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I. Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case of the appellant-complainant before the learned Magistrate is that The respondent had executed an agreement to sell his house property bearing No.1229, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM Layout, Bangalore (Ward No.65), dated 09.12.2004 in favour of the appellant. The said agreement was registered. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.70.00 Lakhs. Out of the said amount, the respondent received Rs.25.00 lakhs by cheque and the balance amount in cash, on different dates. The appellant submits that, the above said agreement to sell was cancelled by agreement dt.22.03.2005 which is also registered. In the said agreement of cancellation, it is stated that, a cheque bearing No.653704 drawn on Bank of Baroda, John Nagar Branch, Bangalore – 560 034, dt.22.03.2005, for Rs.30 lakhs is given towards the repayment of p

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