Skip to main content

Court issues Non-Bailable Warrant in Cheque Dishonour Case

 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Surat) issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Sunil Jariwala, who was convicted by the Court on Monday in a cheque dishonour case.


As per the case, Sunil Jariwala, a proprietor of Taxo Fab, was convicted under Section 255 (2) of the CrPC, 1973 for the charge levied under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act & was sentenced for simple imprisonment for fifteen months with Rs 30 lakh as fine. For the non-payment of fine the accused have to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 months separately.


The Court ordered that "As the accused did not remain present before this court, a non-bailable warrant is to be issued for execution of Sentence".


A complaint was lodged by Jindal Polyweaves Pvt Ltd which is engaged in the business of Grey cloth, against Sunil Jariwala for dishonoured cheque for Rs 15. 93 lakh in 2018.


Jariwala used to take goods from the complainant company on credit & had given goods worth Rs.15.93 lakh in 2018. Jariwala had given a cheque to the company which returned & later a complaint was lodged in Febr 2019.


Lawyer KP Reshamwala appeared on behalf of the complainant in this case.


Earlier, during the proceedings, when the evidence was recorded, neither the accused nor any pleader on behalf of accused remain present & thus, the right of cross-examination of complainant was closed by the Court.


The Judgement reads, "Accused had willingly & knowingly that the trial is commencing, withdrew his presence from this Court. Court cannot help those who slept over their rights. The Court had closed the rights of the accused & had chosen to proceed with the matter in absence of the accused".

.

LEXIS AND COMPANY
"ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"
We are India’s Leading Law Firm
“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”

–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).

Get in Touch

LEXIS AND COMPANY.
C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.
OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,
NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.
INDIA.
lexisandcompany@gmail.com
CALL: +91-9830333388.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected
Post a Comment
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct
Post a Comment
Read more
  Dealing with an ex-husband who is refusing to sign a settlement agreement can be a frustrating and challenging situation, especially when both parties have already reached an agreement. However, there are several steps you can take to address this issue and potentially persuade him to sign the agreement. Firstly, it's essential to communicate with your ex-husband in a calm and respectful manner to understand his reasons for refusing to sign the settlement agreement. Listen to his concerns and try to address any misunderstandings or reservations he may have about the terms of the agreement. Open and honest communication can help clarify any issues and potentially resolve differences amicably. If your ex-husband has specific objections to certain provisions of the settlement agreement, consider negotiating modifications or amendments to address his concerns. Compromise may be necessary to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, and willingness to accommodate his reasonable requests
Post a Comment
Read more