Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)

A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 September, 2013

(2) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (2014) 11 SCC 790, has given discretion to the Magistrate to rely on the complaint, documents annexed and the affidavit submitted by complainant in deciding whether or not to issue process. u/s. 200 CrPC and it is not mandatory to examine upon oath the complainant or its witnesses in order to decide the same. Upon considering the instant complaint, documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused for offence punishable under Section 25 of Payments and Settlements System Act, 2007 r/w Section 138 NI Act. Accused is prima facie responsible, being the drawer of the NACH Mandate/ECS in dispute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 567 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010

(4) As per the guidelines laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, AIR 2010 (SC) 1907, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the summons issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if required) that "accused can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and second hearing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 5512 - Full Document
1