VIPIN SANGHI
Suresh Chandra Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Amit Singhal – Respondent
Vipin Sanghi, J.—After hearing learned counsel, leave granted.
2. Let the appeal be registered and numbered.
Crl.A. No. /2015 (to be registered and numbered)
3. I heard learned counsel finally at the admission stage with their consent and reserved judgment. Accordingly, I now proceed to dispose of the appeal.
4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2014 passed in complaint No. 96/2012, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, has acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
5. The case of the complainant, as emerging from the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant, was that the complainant had invested monies, from time to time, in the business of the accused. A sum of Rs.3 Lakhs was outstanding after accounting for the monies returned by the accused to the complainant. The accused – acting as the first party, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26.06.2011 with the appellant – acting as the second party, for return of the said remaining investment of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant. The relevant extract of the MOU (Ex
Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Another
ICDS Ltd. Vs. Beena Shabeer & Anr.
Sreenivasan Vs. State of Kerala
Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. v. Union of India
P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.
Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
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.