seeking direction against respondent-Bank to issue
another demand draft of Rs.20 lakhs which was lost by the petitioner.
3. Learned Advocate ... lakhs dated 28th
August 2019. On same day he lost the said demand draft. Hence, he
filed complaint with Vile Parle Police station,Mumbai
Britannia Industries Ltd vs Maya Sunil Alagh on 8 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:31654
Britannia Industries Ltd vs Maya Sunil Alagh on 8 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:31654
which was lost by
the Petitioner.
3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Demand Draft was issued by Respondent No.1 Bank ... refund the said
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- or fresh Demand Draft, the
present petition has been filed.
5 Considering the submissions made
rights and contention of the parties,
Mr. Haridas has paid demand draft of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the Respondent
and persuaded the Court to allow ... giving the amount of Rs. Two Lakhs by demand draft to the
Respondent for the lost time till date, Respondent's say was called
rights and contention of the parties,
Mr. Haridas has paid demand draft of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the Respondent
and persuaded the Court to allow ... giving the amount of Rs. Two Lakhs by demand draft to the
Respondent for the lost time till date, Respondent's say was called
branch discounted
the demand draft and paid the amount of draft to that person. When the
demand draft was subsequently forwarded by the respondent ... Baroda the latter refused to honour the demand
draft saying that it was reported to be lost. In spite of strenuous efforts and
lodging
branch discounted
the demand draft and paid the amount of draft to that person. When the
demand draft was subsequently forwarded by the respondent ... Baroda the latter refused to honour the demand
draft saying that it was reported to be lost. In spite of strenuous efforts and
lodging
documents are concerned i.e. the Demand Drafts, Mr. Panandikar
fairly submits that other parameters are available to the Petitioners
to prove such documents. However ... with regard to document Nos. 4 and 9 which are the Demand
Drafts, by summoning the necessary witnesses from the Bank.
18. With these observations
that the accused No. 1 did not demand any bribe on these occasions: The trial Court was critical about the admissibility of tape recorded conversation ... certain tape after the conversation, certain video music was heard, which lost its credibility as suspected to be tampered with. Some tape,' according
