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

2016 Supreme(Guj) 2092

S.G.SHAH
SUNIL KANUBHAI GOSWAMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : MR. HEMANT K. MAKWANA.
For the Respondents: MR. CHINTAN S. POPAT & MR. MANAN MEHTA.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that powers to condone delay in filing a complaint cannot be exercised in absence of any pleading or request to condone delay. (!) (!) - If there is a delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant must plead and prove "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay; absence of such pleading leads to dismissal. (!) (!) - The Court held that where there is a 7-day delay with no application to condone delay and no sufficient cause shown, the revision petition fails and the complaint is time-barred. (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT :

S.G. SHAH, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan S. Popat waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 1-State.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hemant K. Makwana for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta and learned Advocate Mr. Chintan S. Prajapati for Respondent No. 2.

3. Petitioner herein is the original complainant whereas Respondent No. 2 is Original Accused in Criminal Case No. 766/2015 preferred by complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (Rural). Therefore, parties are referred in their same capacity before the Trial Court.

4. The complainant has preferred a complaint contending that the cheque issued by the respondent has returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in his account with the bank. However, it is an undisputed fact that the cheque in question is dated 27th March, 2015 for Rs. 1,36,000/- which was returned unpaid i.e. dishonored by the banker with their endorsement dated 15th June, 2015 for the reason of “insufficient funds” in their account. It is also undisputed fact that statutory




























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