Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey & Anr on 19 September, 2014
The trial court in para 23 of impugned judgment in this case,
had noticed that the complainant had relied upon the judgment in the case
of Narsingh Dass Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Dass Partani (2000) 7 SCC
183, which Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendra
Pratap Singh (supra) had overruled. The para as relevant, reads thus;
Narsingh Das Tapadia vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr on 6 September, 2000
However, this court has perused the said
judgments and would humbly like to state that law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled as Narsingh
DassTapadia (supra) happens to be law which is not
applicable to the fact of the present case because case
titled as Narsingh Dass Tapadia (supra) happens to be
a case where though filing took place prematurely, but
cognizance was taken by magistrate by recording
preliminary evidence and passing summoning order on
the later date when case was no longer a premature case.
It was under these circumstances that Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that mere filing of complaint prematurely
does not entitle dismissal of complaint and prematurity
has to be seen on the date on which cognizance is taken
by magistrate which happens to be a date on which
magistrate applies his mind by getting preliminary
evidence recorded and by passing the summoning order.