( 1 ) AT the outset, Counsel for the petitioners has made it clear that the matter if already pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and for that reason, it is not possible for the petitioners to arrange for any payment at this stage. He has raised the following grounds to challenge the impugned order :-

1. That 20 complaints were filed in respect of dishonour of 20 cheques, but pre-cognizance evidence was recorded only in one case and not in each case. Therefore, the cognizance taken in other 19 cases is bad in law. 2. Taking cognizance by mere placing carbon copies of the order paused in the lead case, on the record of other 19 cases by changing cause title and without ordering that the evidence recorded in the lead case, will also be read as evidence in the other 19 cases is bad in law. 3. It is pointed out that even in the lead case the Magistrate passed one non-speaking order taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the statements recorded and documents placed on record without discussing the evidence and that he should have given detailed reasons discussing the evidence. 4. That a separate notice for each cheque is required to b