Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANIL B KATTI, J
KRISHNA AUTOMATIOIN & SOFTWARE SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SAROJA HANGARAKI BALAACHANDRA S. MULE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of trial court's decisions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the underlying debt transaction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. statutory presumptions regarding cheque validity. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments concerning legal procedural compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusions on legality of the cheque transaction. (Para 22 , 25) |
ORDER
Revision petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 feeling aggrieved by judgment of first appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Criminal Appeal No.95/2015 dated 27.02.2016 in confirming the judgment of the trial Court on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Haveri in C.C. No. 642/2005 dated 03.10.2015, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard arguments of both sides.
4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of trial court records, so also the impugned judgment under appeal, the following points arise for consideration.
i) Whether the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court under revision in confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial c
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
