9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt concerned, the same may be condoned. In this case, though, the complaint was filed well within the time, the delay of 147 days has occurred in representing the complaint. Hence, the Trial Court taking the Crl.M.P.No.7229 of 2010 on the file and issuance of notice to the petitioner who is an accused in un-numbered S.T.C. of 2010 cannot be construed as an abuse of process of law - the case is pending even without assigning S.T.C. Number from the year 2010, due to the pendency of the above Criminal Original Petition. Under Section 143 to 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it could be seen that these amendments have been made for the purpose of the speedy disposal of the cases filed under Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering the inord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the fact being so, the petitioner received a statutory notice under Section 138 from the respondent on 30.01.2010, wherein a demand for ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) has been made, as though the petitioner borrowed the amount from the respondent and the date of the cheque has been mentioned as 18.01.2010 bearing No.567735. 4.On receipt of the notice, the petitioner had sent a detailed reply denying his liability and also informed that the petitioner had not availed any loan from the respondent and further, the petitioner had closed his Saving Bank account with ICICI Bank, Pollachi, as early as on 03.07.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had also preferred a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and by following all the statutory requirements the complaint has been filed before the Lower Court. 8.The only contention is that though the complaint has been filed on 17.03.2010 within the period of limitation, as it could be seen from the complaint and from the seal of the Lower Court, the complaint was returned to the respondent to represent within a period of two weeks time. Thereafter, due to the mix-up of the case bundles in the Advocate office, the case bundle of this case was misplaced and a delay of 147 days had occurred in representing the complaint before the Trial Court. Hence, the trial Court had assigned the Crl.M.P.No.7229 of 2010 and had ordered notice to the petitioner. 9.Be that as it be, the proviso as per the Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
