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

J.H.BHATIA
Nitesh Jayanti Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Mr. Sandeep C. Kekani b. M.K. Kocharekar, Advocate.
For the respondent No. 1: Ms. A.A. Mane, APP.

JUDGMENT

J.H. Bhatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant before this Court is the original accused while respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. The complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court at Dadar and it came to be registered as criminal case No. 5342/SS/2005. According to complainant on the request of accused, he advanced loan of Rs.1,00,000 to the accused, which he assured to repay within the stipulated period. He issued postdated cheque dated 21.4.2005 in favour of the complainant. The cheque was drawn on Dena Bank, Worli Branch, Mumbai. The cheque was presented for encashment, but it was returned with return memo dated 27.5.2005 of Dena Bank and return memo dated 28.5.2005 from United Bank of India through which the complainant had presented cheque to Dena Bank. The endorsement from Dena Bank showed that the cheque was returned unpaid for “funds insufficient”. After that notice dated 25.6.2005, was issued calling upon the accused to make payment. The notice was received by him and he also replied to the said notice through his advocate on 8.7.2005. He failed to make paym














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