Anonymous
16 July 2010 at 14:32
Can 498a be closed in a PS of Andhra Pradesh.
Other party is looking for compromise?
Right now PS didnot send the chargesheet.
Will the closure happens in court or PS.
Please answer
gaurav
16 July 2010 at 14:24
sir one person has lent around 4-5 lakh each to around 50-60 persons who are govt employee in cash and now he has filed complaint case under sec 138 n.i.act.he does not have moneylending licence and doesnot show that loans in his incometax return.he does nt have any source of income 4m where he can substantiate that money amounting 2-3crores.in one of case we have asked him in cross about these cases and he has admitted the same.nw the matter is in final arguments.is there any citation abt legal enforceability of debt and nw is there any legal remedy available like writ or any other remedy which helps us in proving that debt is not legal.plzzzzzz help us we are poor govt officers in clerical grade and that person has misused 138 by filing arbitarily amounts
Anonymous
16 July 2010 at 13:39
I have got some documents signed properly by a customer/defaulter of mine(For sure these documents need not be registered)but there is no witness on these documents,I am confused that would my case be maintainable in court of law or not ?
Please help.
Anonymous
16 July 2010 at 00:43
Gentlemen, is there any ruling of Supreme court that complainant can not file a single case of more then 3 cheques..???actually accused has got 68 cheques bounced 20 cheques on 1 single date 13 cheques on 2nd single date 35 cheques on 3rd single date. accordingly i have filed 3 cases in the court.
in all the cases summons were issued bw was issued then nbw was issued and finally accused got the bail.
while discussion accused's lawyers mentioned the point which is the basis of my question. plz give me expert advice n if possible the latest verdicts os supreme court in cheque bouncing cases
Shree.
15 July 2010 at 22:10
Dear All,
I urgently need advice and judgements regarding the below matter:
Date of cheque presented and got dishonoured: 27.10.2003
cheque dishonoured recieved from Accused Bank: 29.10.2003
But Intimation of Return memo recieved from the complianant only on : 7.11.2003 ( Due to illness of Complianant)
Legal Notice send by Complainant's Advocate to the Accused on; 29/11/2003
Accused Acknowledged the Notice on :31/11/2003
Then Compliant filed u/s 138 & 142 to Magistrate on :10.2.2004(Filing along with condone delay of 27 days and the Magistrate condoned delay in filing taken cognizance of the Compliant)
1.Is there any Judgements regarding Legal Notice to be sent only after recieving return intimation memo from the Bank and then only Limitation period starts?Any High court or Apex court judgement regardng this issue?
2.After filing condone delay petition along with the Main Compliant,Magistrate taken cognisance,then the Accused cannot question at the time of Arguments stage ,after evidences over?
Citations Required?
Anonymous
15 July 2010 at 20:50
HAI SIR GOOD EVENING ,
THIS ISN KUMAR SWAMY MY MOTHER MET AN ACCIDENT ACROSS THE ROAD BY MOTER CYCLE PERSON ON THE MAIN ROAD.SHE FACED LOT OF DAMAGES IN HER'S BODY AND BROKEN HER RIGHT LEG AT TWO PLACES ALSO. THAN AFTER. I WENT TO THE POLICE STATION AND PUT A COMPLAINT ON THE ACCUSE, BUT THE POLICE'S PUT A CASE US 337.BUT DOCTORS SAID TO ME. SHE IS IN VERY HARRABLE SITUATION. NOW IAM NOT BELIVE THE POLICE. WHAT CAN I DO. AND WHICH SECTION IS THE STRONG ON THIS SITUATION.
THANKING YOU SIR
CH. KUMAR SWAMY MBA,{LLB}
Anonymous
15 July 2010 at 18:32
A case of cheque bouncing worth Rs.one lakh is being fought. The petitioner says that the cheque was given under a friendly loan,loan was not returned, so cheque was presented and got bounced hence 138 is applicable.
The opponent advocate knowingly or unknowingly never raised the question that whether the petitioner is a money lender and possess a valid license of money lending,he never appealed to the court to get the age of writing checked of signature and date and amount etc.He never appealed that there is a ruling of Bombay High court that cases of Post dated cheques of loans do not fall in 138.
Ultimately petitioner won the case.
Now it is almost impossible that the judge did not know all these questions/appeals which should have been raised by the respondent's advocate but which were never raised.
My query --is this justice that judge does not interfere knowing that a case is being lost just because of mistakes of an advocate
Can't in the end judge himself raise/suggests the questions/appeals left by both the parties ?
And if he does not do that,is this justice?
Anonymous
15 July 2010 at 17:15
In a revision application can two orders be challenged if the orders are connected to the same matter
O. Mahalakshmi
15 July 2010 at 15:46
Learned Experts,
Can anybody kindly forward the 357-A Cr.P.C amended act 2009 which was published in official gazette with provisions.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
question about fir and section 311 crpc
SIR CAN ANEBODY HELP ME , ABOUT A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 311 CRPC AND CROSS EXAMINATION OF ANY PERSON.......