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

2021 Supreme(P&H) 10

DEEPAK SIBAL
Om Poultries – Appellant
Versus
Dang Poultries – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

2. Through the present petition challenge is made to the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as – the Appellate Court) through which the petitioners' application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for the grant of permission to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert was dismissed.

3. The facts in brief which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that the respondent filed a complaint before the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – the Act) through which it was alleged that the petitioners had been purchasing poultry feed from the complainant and for such purchase had issued, in favour of the complainant, a cheque dated 21.03.2016 for Rs.11,43,150/-. Such cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the petitioners to pay the cheque amount but when the petitioners failed to respond to the same, the complainant filed his aforesaid complaint.

4. After the complainant had led

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