9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of proceedings under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Analysis: The petitioners contested the legality of proceedings initiated based on a complaint alleging a violation of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. They argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the essential elements of Ss. 138 and 141 of the Act were not proven even for taking cognizance. The respondent's counsel opposed these submissions, asserting that the dispute required evidence for effective adjudication, indicating that the petition should not be entertained at the current stage. Analysis: Mr. U.U. Lalit, as the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, raised concerns about the petitioners' difficulty in attending each court date. Considering the nature of the dispute, the court directed that if an application under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is submitted, the trial court should exempt the petitioners from personal attendance. However, the trial court was instructed to establish terms and conditions as per sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 205. Any attempt to prolong the proceedings exploiting the exemption from personal attendance could result in necessary orders from the court. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the legality of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the court's directives regarding the petitioners' personal attendance during the trial proceedings.
|
