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

S.S.SHINDE
Nazim Karim Mumbrawala – Appellant
Versus
Keshava Prasad H. A. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Mallika A Ingale, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

S. S. Shinde J.—The above group of Petitions filed by the Petitioner, who is original accused, challenging the orders passed by the learned Magistrate thereby issuing process against the Petitioner in four Complaints filed by Respondent No.1 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of the post dated cheques mentioned in the Consent Terms arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. It is submitted across the bar that the facts involved in all the above Writ Petitions are similar. In all the four Writ Petitions the Petitioner challenges the orders of issuing process against him. The Petitioner-Accused and Respondent No.1-Complainant are the same in all the four Writ Petitions. However the complaints and cheques are different. In Writ Petition No.886 of 2019 the Complainant No. is 2505/SS/2017 and Cheque Nos. are 000043 dated 18/10/2016 and 000044 dated 18/12/2016; in Writ Petition No.887 of 2019 the Complainant No. is 4531/SS/2017 and Cheque No. is 000047 dated 18/04/2017, in Writ Petition No.888 of 2019 the Co

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