Back
A.K.PARICHHA
MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOODBURN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
DEBAMAYA PANIGRAHI – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a petition challenging the judgment passed by learned 1st Additional istrict and Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2003 confirming the judgment of learned S. D. J. M. (Sadar), Cuttack in I. C. C. No. 304 of 2001 (Trial No. 7167 of 2001) wherein the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to undergo S. I. for a period of three months and further to pay a sum of Rs. 15. 000/- to the opposite party-complainant for the loss of the cheque amount and other ancillary expenses as a measure of compensation provided under S. 357 (3) of the C. P. C.
( 2 ) A cheque bearing No. 578559 for Rs. 12. 880/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that the petitioner instructed not to honour the cheque. After the cheque bounced, the opposite party sent a notice by registered post to the petitioner asking him to make payment within the statutory period of 15 days. When the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated time, the opposite party lodged the complaint case. Basing on the complaint learned S. D. J. M. took cognizance of the offence under S. 138 of the Negot
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based on the provided descriptions. The summaries do not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "abrogated," which are typical indicators of negative treatment or invalidation of a precedent.
Followed / Cited:
Annapurna Cast Limited VS Akshaya Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Calcutta (2016): This case references a decision from 2007 (Managing Director, Woodburn Developers and Builders ... Ltd. v. Smt. Debamaya Panigrahi) as a cited authority on the point. The language "He has also cited the following decision" suggests it is being used as a supporting or persuasive precedent, not that it has been overruled or questioned.
JANARDHAN MOHAPATRA VS SAROJ KUMAR CHOUDHURY - 1993 0 Supreme(Ori) 14: The decision regarding the interpretation of Sections 142 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act appears to be a straightforward legal interpretation, with no indication of subsequent treatment. It is presented as a settled point of law.
K. Bhaskaran VS Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan - 1999 8 Supreme 608: The detailed points about the offence of dishonor of cheque and related legal procedures are presented as established legal principles without indication of negative treatment.
Collector Of Central Excise, Ahmedabad VS Orient Fabrics Private LTD. - 2003 8 Supreme 515: The statement about Central Excise Act creating no liability and confiscation proceedings being unwarranted appears to be a legal interpretation, with no sign of it being overruled.
N. E. P. C. Micon LTD. VS Magma Leasing LTD. - 1999 4 Supreme 378: The explanation regarding closing an account and cheque dishonor is presented as a legal point, with no indication of subsequent negative treatment.
S. I. L. Import, Usa VS Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore - 1999 4 Supreme 400: The point about transmitting notice via Fax and the legal requirements for compliance is presented as an important point without any indication of it being questioned or overruled.
Distinguished / Uncertain:
None of the cases explicitly mention being distinguished from other rulings or being questioned or criticized.
All cases appear to be presented as statements of legal principles or references to other decisions without explicit treatment indicating they have been overruled or negatively treated. Due to the lack of such language, their treatment status remains clear: they are considered valid and unoverruled based on the provided information.
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
