The respondent No.2 herein however filed the petition in CRL.P No.12675 of 2018 and analogous petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') before the High Court praying to quash proceedings under CC No. Hence for the purpose of narration and consideration of the law, the facts relating to the appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7455 of 2019 is referred herein.ĥ. However, in all the promissory notes the period for repayment indicated is the same and all other facts arising for consideration are similar. The fact situation in the analogous appeals is also similar except for the date of the promissory note and the date of the cheque. The learned Special Magistrate in accordance with law, took cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the respondent No.2 - accused vide order dated and ordered the issue of summons.Ĥ. The appellant thereafter filed complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act on before the Special Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam vide CC No. Respondent No.2 sent a reply to the said rejoinder on.
The appellant sent a rejoinder to the said reply on.
The appellant got issued a legal notice dated to respondent No.2, which was replied to by respondent No.2 on. The cheque when presented for collection was returned by the Bank on due to insufficient funds to honour the cheque. 10,00,000/- towards partial discharge of the debt. The respondent No.2 failed to comply with the condition in the promissory note but on issued a cheque bearing No.548045 drawn on the Vijaya Bank, J.P.
#2000 slp to php full#
There was a condition in the promissory note that the full and final payment will be made by December, 2016. In order to assure the re-payment, respondent no.2 executed a promissory note on wherein it was agreed that the amount was to be repaid in full and along with interest at 2% per month. Due to their acquaintance respondent no.2 approached the appellant to borrow a sum of Rs 20,00,000/- stating that he required the amount to finance his son's higher education to study medicine and for domestic expenses. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the first of the above appeal are that the appellant and respondent no.2 are known to each other. The appellant is therefore before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment.ģ. 681 of 2017 and the other complaints, filed against the accused - respondent no.2 under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short).
The appellant is the complainant in CC No. No.681 of 2017 and analogous complaints on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. Through the judgment, the High Court while allowing the petitions before it, quashed the criminal proceedings against Respondent No. The appellant is assailing the judgment dated passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Criminal Petition No. This Data Card highlights the Features of the RPO WU6 Special Order Performance Pontiac Model offered by SLP. Original 2000 Firehawk by SLP Engineering Special Edition Pontiac Firebird Promotional Handout Card. Page Count 1 Condition Used Original - Good Item Type Promotional Material Inventory Number SB-37543 2000 SLP Firehawk Pontiac Special Edition Performance Package Firebird RPO WU6 Price $9.95 Details W: 11 x H: 8.5 x D: 0.1 Weight 0.06 lbs.
0 kommentar(er)
