Warud Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Kuramdas Satpute ) & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Jan 2010
- Bench
- A P BHANGALE
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ss. 118, 139
Judgment
Mr. Sudhir Malode, Adv.for applicant Mr C.N.Adgokar APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 8, 2010. Heard.
By this application, the applicant/appellant prays for grant of leave under section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge did not address itself to the statutory presumption which is available in favour of the complainant u/s 139 read with section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while the trial Court did find that cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and despite notice of demand in writing, the amount was not paid nor the notice was replied by the accused.
Under these circumstances, arguable case is made out for grant of leave. Leave granted. Leaned Advocate for the respondent No.1 is absent. Criminal Appeal.........../2009. 2 Admit. Call R & P. JUDGE sahare
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(4); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — ss. 118, 139.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Jan 2010. The bench was A P BHANGALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.