https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400675 In a pre-trial complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant was entitled to delete particulars relating to the date or period of the alleged transaction, because such detail was not treated as a mandatory requirement for maintaining the complaint and any omission could be addressed in defence. The trial court's refusal on the ground that deletion would weaken the complaint was set aside, and the amendment was allowed. A later amendment application substituting a different period could not be rejected as not maintainable once the earlier rejection was found unsustainable; that application was also set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on merits. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:45:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400675 In a pre-trial complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant was entitled to delete particulars relating to the date or period of the alleged transaction, because such detail was not treated as a mandatory requirement for maintaining the complaint and any omission could be addressed in defence. The trial court's refusal on the ground that deletion would weaken the complaint was set aside, and the amendment was allowed. A later amendment application substituting a different period could not be rejected as not maintainable once the earlier rejection was found unsustainable; that application was also set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400675