Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
Sanjay Jalan – Appellant
Versus
Sathish – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural requests made by the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the cheque liability and refusal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations regarding the conduct of both parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. modification of fine as per the justice requirement. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This matter is posted today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the order dated 23.02.2026, passed in the above revision, there are certain typographical errors. The appearance of the counsel is wrongly mentioned as “the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)” instead of “the learned counsel for the respondent” and in the 6th and 8th paragraphs, STC No., is wrongly mentioned as “Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge, Puducherry” instead of “STC No.3407 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai.” Similarly, in paragraph No. 8, the time for payment of the balance fine amount is wrongly mentioned as “within a period of four weeks” instead of “within a period of fou
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
