Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. - (High Court of Allahabad) (17 Aug 2015)

No necessity for complaint to aver actual date of service of notice against dishonoured cheque



If the complaint contains the date of issuance of registered notice, merely not containing the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid is not to be of much consequence. It was claimed by the Applicant (drawer of the cheque) that by not mentioning the date of service of notice in the complaint, no cause of action had been disclosed by the complainant. The Court held that once it was alleged that a registered notice was sent to the address of the drawer of the cheque, it was deemed to have been served or the addressee is deemed to have the knowledge of the notice.

Relevant : C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another MANU/SC/2263/2007 State of M.P. v. Hiralal and Ors. MANU/SC/1388/1996


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved