M/s Damu Datta Naik Karmali vs Shri Mariano Anthony Rodrigues

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J
M/s Damu Datta Naik Karmali – Appellant
Versus
Shri Mariano Anthony Rodrigues – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.A. Kholkar
For the Respondents: Mr. A.F. Diniz, Mr. C.A. Ferreira

Table of Content
1. challenge regarding service of notice under section 138. (Para 2 , 3)
2. appellant's argument on presumption and evidence. (Para 4 , 5)
3. evidence analysis of notice addresses. (Para 6 , 7 , 12)
4. c.c. alavi haji case relevance reiterated. (Para 13 , 14)
5. need for reasoned judgments in remanded cases. (Para 16 , 17)
6. judgment coherence and service of notice requirements (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 18/03/2006, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short) has been dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant is not entitled for presumption about the service of notice which is statutorily required to be given before initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act and, secondly, that the Exhibit 36 which was claimed by the appellant to be the confirmation of the balance amount due from the respondent was a concocted and fabricated piece of evidence and that, therefore, the appellant has miserably failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellant while a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOAR.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, JM/s Damu Datta Naik Karmali – AppellantVersusShri Mariano Anthony Rodrigues – Respondent

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT GOA
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J
M/s Damu Datta Naik Karmali – Appellant
Versus
Shri Mariano Anthony Rodrigues – Respondent