Sandeep Kumar Garg Vs. Sandeep Kumar Aggarwal

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 6...........in complaint for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act. that application was dismissed by the judicial magistrate, panchkula vide order dated 4.4.2001. against that the order, the present revision petition is filed.2. the facts of the case are that a complaint for the offence under section 138 of the n.i. act was filed by sandeep kumar aggarwal-respondent. it comes out that one cheque of rs. 30,000/- dated 7.7.1996 was issued by sandeep kumar garg accused/petitioner whereas another cheque of rs. 6300/- dated 24.5.1996 was issued by sandeep kumar and saroj garg, petitioners for accurate projects & capital services ltd. both these cheques had been presented in the bank and returned with the observation that the accounts were closed. it also comes out that on 11.11.1996, a notice was issued by the complainant to sandeep kumar only for both the cheques to make the payment alongwith interest within 15 days. the complaint was then filed on 2.12.1996.3. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the notice had been served on 28.11.1996 and 15 days period had not expired and the complaint could not be filed on 2.12.1996. further, the contention of the petitioner was that no notice was issued to saroj garg nor notice was issued to the company.4. case against saroj garg is quite different than that of sandeep kumar garg. no notice had been issued to saroj garg. the cheque issued by her was not in her individual capacity. it was signed by her alongwith other accused on behalf of the company. one complaint had been filed for both the cheques i.e. for rs. 30000/- issued by sandeep garg in his personal capacity and rs. 6300/- issued by sandeep garg & saroj garg for company. notice had also been issued only to sandeep kumar aggarwal.5. under these circumstances, i hold that the case against saroj garg cannot proceed and the complaint against her is dismissed.6. in the notice dated 11.11.1996 issued to sandeep kumar garg, it was.....