Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Anamul Haque, S/o- Lt. Mudassir Ahmed Laskar – Appellant
Versus
Nilufa Sultana Barbhuiya, D/o- Late Mozibur Rahman Barbhuiya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds. (Para 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. errors in the notice do not negate cause of action. (Para 5 , 7 , 14) |
| 3. typographical errors as non-fatal to prosecution. (Para 9 , 17 , 20) |
| 4. distinct identities of involved parties must be determined at trial. (Para 10 , 11 , 30) |
| 5. inherent powers should not disrupt trial evidence. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 6. rejection of inherent power application due to questionable facts. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed under section 528 of the BNSS ,2023 by the petitioner, Anamul Haque seeking setting aside and quashing of the entire proceeding of NI case No. 25 of 2023 pending before the learned court of Additional CJM, Cachar, Silchar.
3. The facts in a nutshell are that the sole respondent, Nilufa Sultana Barbhuiya is stated to have issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner, Anamul Haque of Rs.3 (three) lakhs which was however, dishonored due to alleged insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice and after the expiry of the statutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
