Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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

2026 (1) TMI 845

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act'). 2. Heard Sri J. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 3. In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.4; that it has not issued any cheque in favour of respondent No.2-complainant; that even according to the contents of the complaint, no allegations are levelled against the petitioner herein and thus, the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act does not attract agains....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. It is alleged that accused No.2 is the authorised person to the petitioner/accused No.4-Company and also a registered Stock Broker under Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI). It is further alleged that accused No.1-Company is affiliated to accused No.4- Company and that generated a trust that investment with accused No.1-Company was a secured investment. It is further alleged that accused No.3 has introduced himself as a Manager to the clients, whoever approaches the accused No.1-Company, and used to sign the bonds as authorized signatory and issue cheques of accused No.1-Company signed by accused No.2. It is alleged that the accused have persuaded the com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice." 9. As per the allegations....