CRL.REV.P./520/2010 of TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD. Vs VIJAY SHIRKE
Parties
- CRL.REV.P./520/2010 of TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD. (PETITIONER)
- Signature Not Verified (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 2 detected)
2 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
24, 25, 29-40, 42-45, 47-55, 57-58, [60, 62-68, 70, 72-85 ]13.09.2010
Present: [Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. ]
± CRIMINAL REVISION PET1TIOIN NOS. 497/2010, 498/2010, 502-5113/2010, 515-518/2010, [520-528/2010, ][530-531/20101][) ]533/2010, 535-54112010, 543/2010, 545-558/2010
1. [These revision petitions are directed against the order dated ][18th ][ May, ]2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstTuments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugned order dated [18th ][ May, 2010, learned trial court ]has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 1 3 [8(h) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned ]counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 [proviso ]clause (b) of the Act. He relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court including V. Raja Kumari versus P. Subbararna Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and [D. Vinod Shivappa versus ]Nanda Belliappa, 2006) 6 SCC 456. He submits that the question of service of notice was not argued and questioned. He states that arguments were heard on the point of territorial jurisdiction only. He submits that in case the question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1 872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by
Signature Not Verified
this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2010 and other coimected cases on [301h ] August, 2010.
In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated [18thi ] May,
2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh hearing and decision. J.earned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
The petitioner will appear before the trial court on [5th ] October, 2010.
[he petitions are accordingly disposed of.
--I, , - // L, -
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SE1TEMBER 13, 2010
VKR