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

2013 Supreme(Del) 49

G.P.MITTAL
Hardeep Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Akil Rataeeya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.

JUDGMENT

Crl. MA No.227/2013 (delay)

Oral:

G.P. Mittal, J.

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.

Crl. Rev.P. 11/2013 And Crl. Ma 228/2013 (Stay)

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 02.01.2010 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











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