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

2011 Supreme(Guj) 704

M.D.SHAH
Surendra Sukhnandan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :P.P. Majmudar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:L.R. Pujari, APP., Hasit Dilip Dave, Advocates.

ORDER :

M.D. SHAH, J.

1. The present respondent No.2 lodged complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short) in which process was issued by the trial court after verification of the complaint and after recording the statement of the complainant which was numbered as Criminal Case No.1011 of 2008. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Rule. Learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.H.D.Dave for the respondent No.2 waive service of rule.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner, learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.H.D.Dave for the respondent No.2.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Majmudar that complaint was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and was time barred. It is further stated that nowhere it is mentioned in the complaint as to for what reason, delay has been occurred in filing the complaint. On the contrary, it wa

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