Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
NISHAD MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
BISMI APPLIANCES – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint and the accused's roles. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument regarding the non-issuance of statutory notices. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observation on the necessity of statutory notice. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial commentary on the legal implications of non-notification. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the 5th accused in C.C.No.3219/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (NI Act cases), Ernakulam, which has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against six accused persons, including the petitioner, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, (‘NI Act’, in short).
2. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 in the complaint that the 1st accused is the Managing Partner of the 6th accused firm and accused 2 to 5 are its partners. In discharge of legally enforceable debt, the 1st accused issued a cheque in favour of the 1st respondent, which got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Although statutory lawyer notice was issued to the accused no amount has been paid. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard.
4. The petitioner’s principal content
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
