RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Arvind Kumar Thakur, S/o. K. K. Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Pooja Gupta, W/o. Ritesh Gupta – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision No.401/2018 by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur dated 03.12.2018 whereby the revision preferred by the complainant has been allowed and the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur in unregistered case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been set aside.
2. The case, in nutshell, is that, the respondent filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the IPC on the ground that cheque No.189467 was issued in discharge of liability by the petitioner on 15.12.2017 and when it was presented before the ICICI bank, Bilaspur on 18.12.2017 it got dishonoured. The complainant was informed regarding dishonour of cheque and intimation was given in this regard on 19.12.2017 and again it was dishonoured on 06.02.2018 which was presented before the bank on assurance given by the petitioner. A legal demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued on 28.02.2018 by the petitioner, but he could not receive the postal acknowledgment and thereafter, he approached the postal department thereafter the
Econ Antri Limited Vs. Rom Industries Limited and another
Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd.
Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal.[(1972) 1 SCC 639
Danial Latifi v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 740
SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters
Suboth S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah
Cartwright v. MacCormack (1963) 1 WLR 18
Pawan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh Narula
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.