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

M.L.MEHTA
S. Minz – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Bala Gupta – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties
For the Petitioner:Mr. O.P. Gehlaut, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

M. L. Mehta J.— This is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned MM dated 11.11.2011, in the Complaint case No. 44/2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the learned MM dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying for examination of the signatures on the dishonoured cheque by the FSL.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner issued two cheques bearing cheque No. 549103 dated 17.12.2007 and 549104 dated 26.12.2007 of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 each to the complainant/respondent. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation to the bank of the complainant/respondent citing “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued and due to non-payment of the cheque amount, a complaint was filed in the Court of learned MM under Section 138 of the Act. The prosecution evidence was recorded and the prosecution witnesses cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner, in his defense, moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for verification of the signatures o













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