accused is that he kept the signed cheques in his office which were lost. He admitted the signature in the cheque. The trial Court further ... even preferred a complaint before the police for the lost cheques. He did not advise the bank to stop payment if the lost cheques were
lakhs to the respondent and therefore, he issued six cheques and that the cheques dated 28.03.2005 and 31.03.2005, which were for a value ... even preferred a complaint before the police for the lost cheques. He did not advise the bank to stop payment if the lost cheques were
lakhs to the respondent and therefore, he issued six cheques and that the cheques dated 19.03.2005 and 31.05.2005 were presented for a value ... even preferred a complaint before the police for the lost cheques. He did not advise the bank to stop payment if the lost cheques were
accused is that he kept the signed cheques in his office which were lost. He admitted the signature in the cheque. The trial Court further ... even preferred a complaint before the police for the lost cheques. He did not advise the bank to stop payment if the lost cheques were
same he had issued two cheques for Rs.50,000/- each. On presentation of the cheques and return thereof unpaid, the complainant caused statutory notice ... complainant. Alleging that the cheques giving rise to the action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been lost by his father
Augustin vs State Represented By on 5 July, 2017
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C
Naveen @ L.Srinivasan vs State Rep. By on 12 April, 2010
Author: C.T. Selvam
