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

KULDIP SINGH
Subhash Sahni – Appellant
Versus
Auro Spinning Mills – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh, J.—The record of the case has been received, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision has been finally heard.

2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.4.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Salon in Cr. A. No. 5NL/10 of 2006/05 confirming the conviction of petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act) recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 30.7.2005/3.8.2005 in Criminal Complaint No. 47/3 of 1999.

3. The facts in brief are that petitioner in the years 1997-98 was the Managing Director of M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. Company based at Bhiwani in Haryana. It had business transactions with complainant M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, a company based at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant company had supplied yarn to the company of the petitioner and petitioner allegedly issued five cheques of different amounts on different dates towards the payment of the material supplied by the complainant company. The cheques issued by the petitioner were presented by the complainant company in State Bank of Patiala, how













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