Madhya Pradesh Court November 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Swaroop Vegetables Product Industries Ltd. Vs. Vindhya Soya Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1150
ORDERI. Panduranga Rao, J.1. This is a revision filed by the accused against whom a private complaint was filed Under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging taking cognisance of the offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hoshangabad by his order dated 9-10-91 in Cr. Case No. 141/1991.2. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the order of the learned Magistrate does not disclose the date of the cheque the amount for which the cheque was issued, the date on which the cause of action has arisen and hence such a cryptic order is liable to be set aside.3. The learned counsel for the non-applicant complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant had issued a cheque for Rs. 3,08,275.00 on 14th February, 1991; that when the cheque was presented to the Central Bank of India, Hoshangabad Branch, it was returned on 30-3-1991 with the endorsement 'referred to drawer...
Durg Brass Metal Works and ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Khare and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1994
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ558
ORDERD.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. In the matter of procedure governed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants applied for amendment of their application before grant of leave to defend this suit. The same was rejected by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 51-B/89. The amendment was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for making amendment in the application.2. Order 37, Civil Procedure Code, deals with the summary procedure and the procedure for the appearance of the defendant is given in Rule 3. Sub-clause (5) of Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code is extracted as below:-'(5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›