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

1984 Supreme(Raj) 406

D.L.MEHTA
Jagdish Narain – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sunder – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - An amount of 32,000/- plus an amount of interest was due against the non-petitioner, Om Prakash and his brothers. It is an admitted position that on 1st August, 1982, no transaction has taken place. Neither any article was sold to the non-petitioners on credit, nor any property was received by the present non-petitioners on 1st August, 1982. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 1st August, 1982, he came to Gangapur City to purchase some goods from other parties. The petitioner's bank and creditors were not in know of the fact that the petitioner has come to purchase the goods from other party. So they contacted him in Gangapur City and demanded the amount due from him. The further allegation is that Om Prakash, non-petitioner, issued a cheque for 5000/- towards the outstanding amount in favour of the petitioner. The cheque was dishonoured by the Bank.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that no amount was in the account of the non-petitioner. Om Prakash and the non-petitioner fraudulently and with a dishonest intention issued the cheque in favour of the petitioners to cheat them. A complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate, Gangapur City, who















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