G.P.Mittal
Hardeep Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. – Respondent
G.P. Mittal, J.—Crl. MA No. 227/2013 (delay).
There is a delay of 8 days in filing the petition.
2. For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay of 8 days in filing the petition is condoned.
3. The Application is allowed.
4. The Petitioner approached the Respondent ICICI Bank Limited for grant of some credit facility. The Respondent Bank acceded to the Petitioner’s request and granted him credit facility to carry out the business of his sole Proprietorship firm Bajaj Machinery Stores. The Petitioner undertook to pay the outstanding amount to the Respondent Bank as due and payable from time to time. In discharge of part of his debts/liability towards the Respondent Bank, the Petitioner issued a cheque for amount of Rs.15 lacs bearing No.097644 dated 2.1.2010 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of the Respondent. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “fund insufficient.” A demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) remained unheeded compelling the Respondent Bank to file a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
5. The learned Metropolitan Magistr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.