Yelahanka Merchants Finance Co Pvt Ltd vs Manjunath R S/O Ramaiah C on 17 August, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Yelahanka Merchants Finance Co Pvt Ltd vs Manjunath R S/O Ramaiah C on 17 August, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

 "ihﬁ egympiéiziffér default. It is against this order, the

..   notice 31$ isaucé. Na dsoubt the matter pertains to
   "2603, however, considering that. despsite of takmg
  respondent 113$ :10? been served and ocrnsidering that the

   4c':<.):m.p1ain£ is dismissed for default and oﬁencc aﬂsged against

-3-

THIS PETITEON COM§l\iC} GN FOR' ADIVHSSION THIS DAY, THE
CQEERT MADE THE FGLLOWENG:
%DEB

Peﬁtioner is the complainant He has ﬁletd an 
complaint under Sczction 200 of Cr.P.C. for _ an'
punishabie under Section 138 9f the Nego§a_hk~,: _A4_:i:1§'§i".ﬁ1meﬁt'sT  b 

Act.

2. The learned Mag'su'ate §51--:....    L'
swam statemﬁnt and a1§§0   by the
comylainant. being  14:-;2iLi§: :gm§inds to proceed
with the matter, by,his   wgzistereé thfi

complaint and    sui:;1}110I;Vs._ 'I"h3c1'eé1fter, the summons

were not servéti Vast}:  bf'  N.B.W. was issued,
even the " 'it2_asAV hot  Hcwcven when the matter
W83 pasta} u can  ='sit1c€ the complainant and

com;)1a3'3_1a_nt's éiiivﬁicatft 1a§za,sV«1iii;;t pmsent, 'ﬁlm ieamed Magsﬁate

has' xgpyerom ibis Court.

 Sinzcé:  respondent is not sczvcd before the learned

\
 -

( W')-

the respondent being 011:-: punishable under Section l38_.o_f the Negotiable Insmunents Act. I ﬁnd that, on some cqﬁdiﬁaﬁiiﬁ. matttir could be allowed.

4. Accordingly, this patiti-31:1 is"; éI1dw3(i;._ order in C.C.N0.993j'2OO4 dated 29. i0. :20(§'? is sef §1side'~, is remitted is the leamsé Magis£rat§"'tp ﬁum the stage where it ,----\§ras $t;3p}§§:d;""-.§u¥3je«{$t~--t<>..~i;)et:it:i<)2:1er ciepasiting Rs. 1.000] -- befofé Petition is appéér learned Magistrate on 14.9.2009.

sd/-

JUDGE K -{j

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court