9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the orders of acquittal passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. 829/94. The complainant preferred this appeal. In the said judgment the Magistrate held that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability and acquitted the respondent. 2. Smt. K. Amruthavalli, Managing Partner, the complainant, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at the same time he categorically stated that certain incentives are due from the appellant Company and unless and until the accounts are settled the question of paying the amounts does not arise. It was further stated in the reply notice that the cheque in question was issued only for security purpose and not in discharge of any debt. Thereafter the present complaint was filed to prove his case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be about the validity period of a cheque under proviso (a) of Section 138 of N.I. Act by which Act the cheque has to be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has addressed elaborate argument by relying on Sec. 20 of the N.I. Act and contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified time it will create so may anomalous situations which are likely to be used by unscrupulous litigants. For all these reasons the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 3. At this stage Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment may not come in the way of his client in enforcing the civil liability against the respondent. Having regard to the submission, it is clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
