Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Prashant Goel vs State & Anr on 13 October, 2009

Sushant Bakshi vs Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre on 30 March, 2011

Learned counsel placed reliance on State of Maharashtra versus Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre and others, reported as AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 231, P.K.Choudhury versus Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF), reported as 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases, 126 (S.C.), M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported as 1998 Supreme Court, 128, Prashant Goel versus State and another, reported as 2007 (1) Criminal Court Cases, 838 (Delhi), Gautam Saikia versus Diganta Sarmah, reported as 2009 (1), Civil Court Cases, 132 (Gauhati), Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala and others versus M/s Eastern Roadways Private Limited, reported as 2007 (3), Civil Court Cases, 203 (Karnataka), M/s Keciyo Coconut Oils Private Limited and others versus State of Kerala, reported as 2002 Cri.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Gunjan Chadha vs . on 30 April, 2011

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision is that respondent preferred a complaint U/s 138 NI Act after one cheque issued in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Apparels was dishonoured for "insufficient fund" and no payment was made to him despite issuance of demand notice U/s 138 (h) NI Act. Since there was delay of around 2 days in filing of the complaint, complainant / respondent preferred an application seeking condonation thereof. On the very first date when the fresh complaint was received by Ld. MM, he simply issued a notice of its condonation application to the revisionist / accused for affording her an opportunity of being 3 heard in terms of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5930/2005 titled Prashant Goel Vs. State and Another.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Gunjan Chadha vs . on 30 April, 2011

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision is that respondent preferred a complaint U/s 138 NI Act after one cheque issued in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Apparels was dishonoured for "insufficient fund" and no payment was made to him despite issuance of demand notice U/s 138 (h) NI Act. Since there was delay of around 2 days in filing of the complaint, complainant / respondent preferred an application seeking condonation thereof. On the very first date when the fresh complaint was received by Ld. MM, he simply issued a notice of its condonation application to the revisionist / accused for affording her an opportunity of being 3 heard in terms of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5930/2005 titled Prashant Goel Vs. State and Another.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next