Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.91 seconds)Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
16. The above verdict thus makes it explicit that in case the drawer makes
good the payment within 15 days of receipt of summons, the complaint is
liable to be rejected. In the present case, the payment was made on
27.08.2013, much before the appellant was even summoned on
08.10.2013. Therefore, the mandate of CC Alavi Haji (supra) will apply
with full force even in the present case. When the matter was settled ex
curia, where arose the need of continuing with the prosecution, rather
persecution of the appellant. The respondent complainant has persistently
demonstrated its contumacious conduct by needlessly prosecuting the
complaint, with wanton disregard of the loss and mortification caused to
the appellant who had already paid his dues. It is writ large that despite
receiving payment by the appellant, the respondent company denied
receipt of payment, and frittered away precious time of the court, for
which it deserves the strictest condemnation.
1