Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (9) TMI 1497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv., Ms. Sheffali Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv., Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Adv., Mr. V. Bishwanath Bhandarkar, Adv., Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. H.K. Naik, Adv., Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR ORDER DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Application for substitution is allowed and abateme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et up by the complainant was that the original appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from him and for repayment of that sum had issued a cheque on 18.11.2000 drawn on State Bank of Mysore. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, legal notice (Ext.P4) was issued, which has been duly served upon the original appellant. According to the complainant,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re evidence, has delivered a well reasoned judgment upsetting the judgment of the Trial Court. The reasons which weighed with the High Court were that; (1) the original appellant did not step into the witness box to state that he had not signed the cheque; (2) that the opinion of the handwriting expert was only an opinion and not conclusive; (3) that the original appellant had failed to prove that....