JITENDRA SINGH FLORA Vs. RAVIKANT TALWAR
LAWS(MPH)-2000-8-95
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on August 08,2000

JITENDRA SINGH FLORA Appellant
VERSUS
RAVIKANT TALWAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MANDADI RAM REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
PRAJAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID KHAN VS. SHARDA SHRIVASTAVA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDER SINGH BHASIN VS. SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA CHOUHAN VS. GOPICHAND KHATRI [LAWS(MPH)-2016-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGYA EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & TWO OTHERS VS. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-142] [REFERRED]
DHARANIDHAR VS. NASIRKHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-204] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHU RICE AND GENERAL MILLS, QADIAN AND ANOTHER VS. PUNJAB STATE CO-OP SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-953] [REFERRED]
RAJENDRA UPADHYAY VS. PREM MOTORS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMAD IRFAN VS. VELUKANNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-206] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision is directed against the order dated 25-10-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jabalpur in criminal Case No.814 of 1999.
(2.)The non-applicant Ravikant Talwar filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth 'the Act'). The non-applicant alleged in his complaint that he is the holder of power of attorney of one Shri Shashikant Talwar. The applicant and the complainant entered into two agreements dated 8-5-1990 and 10-5-1992, whereby the applicant was required to construct building No. 183, A.P.R. Colony, Katanga, Jabalpur. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreements, it is alleged that the non-applicant advanced Rs.2,70,000/- to the applicant. It was agreed that the work of construction of above mentioned house shall be over by 30-8-1992. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant was not able to deliver the completed building by 30-8-1992 and, therefore, the non-applicant agreed to extend the time till 30-4-1993. It is alleged in the complaint that pursuant to the aforesaid agreements, three post-dated cheques dated 30-4-1993 were issued by the applicant in favour of the non-applicant bearing No.0646945 of Rs.30,000/-, No.0646946 of Rs.30,000/- and No.064947 of Rs.40,000/-. These cheques were in respect of the deposit of the applicant in the Bank of India, Napier Town Branch, Jabalpur. It is alleged that after 30-4-1993, when the construction was not completed, the non-applicant presented the cheques to the Bank of India on 5-5-1993. The Bank dishonoured the cheques issued by the applicant with the remarks that "Refer to Drawer Insufficient Funds". The dishonoured cheques along with the advice of the Bank were returned to the non-applicant on 7-5-1993.
(3.)Thereafter, the non-applicant served a notice dated 18-5-1993 to the applicant under Section 138 of the Act which was received by the applicant on 19-5-1993. In the notice, a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) was made by the non-applicant. On receiving no response from the applicant, the non-applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 18-6-1993 within the period of limitation prescribed therefor.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.