Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: RAM NAIK in Sri Srinivasagowda vs Sri Thippegowda on 15 April, 2025Matching Fragments
11. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) B.Girish Vs. S.Ramaiah (Girish)1
(ii) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (Aneeta Hada)2
(iii) Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Private Limited and Anr. (Anil Gupta)3
(iv) Ramdas S/o Khelu Naik Vs,. Krishnanand S/o Vishnu Naik (Ramdas)4
12. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant supporting the impugned judgment and order submitted that the loan in question was availed by the accused in his personal capacity and the cheques in question are standing in the name of proprietorship LAWS(KAR)-2010-1-52: Crl.A.No.1371/2007 Dt:13.01.2010 (2012) 5 SCC 661 (2014) 10 SCC 373 (2014) 12 SCC 625 NC: 2025:KHC:15519 concern of which accused is the proprietor. Therefore, rightly the proprietorship concern is not arraigned as accused. Therefore, the defence of the accused that in the absence of the proprietorship concern, complaint is not maintainable against the him is not acceptable.