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

2015 Supreme(P&H) 463

SABINA
Santosh Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant :Rahul Vats, Advocate for Tarun Gupta, Advocate

Sabina, J.

1. Appellant had filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent qua dishonour of cheques in question dated 4.8.2012 and 16.8.2012 in the sum of ` 5,000/- and ` 20,000/-, respectively. Vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2013, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 11.11.2013, the case was listed before the Trial Court for appearance of the accused. Hence, presence of the complainant was not necessary.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. Impugned order dated 11.11.2013 reads as under:--

"Case file taken up again during evening court. Case called several time but none has appeared on behalf of complainant. Even on the last date of hearing exemption application was filed on behalf of the complainant, thus it appear he has lost interest in the present case or the matter has been compromised between the parties. It is already 4.45 P.M. No further wait is justified. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

Section 256 of th






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