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

M. NAGAPRASANNA
Heena Thirumali Sateesh – Appellant
Versus
Minimelt Engineers India – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sri. Dilip Kumar I.S., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Ajay R.A., Advocate

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8836/2021, pending before the XX Additional S.C.J. and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH-22), Bengaluru, registered for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’). The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said proceedings.

2. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar I.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay R.A., learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioners are directors of Hoysala Projects Private Limited (for short ‘the Company’). The respondent is the complainant. The respondent and the Company entered into certain transaction, in furtherance of which, the authorised signatory of the Company issues certain cheques in favour of the respondent - complainant. The cheques, when presented for its realisation, were returned for want of sufficient funds, which leads the complainant to take recourse to legal proceedings against the Company and the office bearers, who are the petitioners herein the others. A complaint comes to be registered before the concerned Court invoking Section 20

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