Full Text
Translation output
$-^24 to 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 138.^/2015 &Crl. M.A.Nos>f>n80-5081/2015
IFCI FACTORS LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advoeate
IFCI FACTORS LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advoeate
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate CRL.M.C. 1.^84/2015 & Crl.M,A.Nos.5099-6000/2015
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate CRL.M.C. 1.^84/2015 & Crl.M,A.Nos.5099-6000/2015
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents CRL.M.C. l-^SS/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.5101-5102/2015
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents
CRL.M.C. 1386/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.5103-5104/2015
• Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
Crl.M.C.No.1383/2015 Page 1 Crl.M.C.No.1384/2015
Crl.M.C.No.1385/2015 Crl.M.C.No.1386/2015 2015:DHC:10772
• Through: Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Advocate
Crl.M.C.No.1383/2015 Page 1 Crl.M.C.No.1384/2015
Crl.M.C.No.1385/2015 Crl.M.C.No.1386/2015 2015:DHC:10772
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents
Through; Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
Through; Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
0/„ 10.04.2015
In the above captioned four petitions, impugned order directs return ofeomplaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Imtnmiente Act, 1881 tothe court ofcompetent jurisdiction.
Since quashing of impugned order in these petitions is sought on identical grounds, therefore, these petitioners have been heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
.At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cheuqes in questionwere atpar andthey canbe presented at any locality.
The aforesaid submission has been already dealt by this Court m
Crl. M.C.No.700/2012, Neeraj J Shah Vs. Anr. vide order of23 March,
0/„ 10.04.2015
In the above captioned four petitions, impugned order directs return ofeomplaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Imtnmiente Act, 1881 tothe court ofcompetent jurisdiction.
Since quashing of impugned order in these petitions is sought on identical grounds, therefore, these petitioners have been heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
.At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cheuqes in questionwere atpar andthey canbe presented at any locality.
The aforesaid submission has been already dealt by this Court m
Crl. M.C.No.700/2012, Neeraj J Shah Vs. Anr. vide order of23 March,
ORDER
2015. Adopting the reasoning given in the aforesaid order of23 March, 2015, the above captioned four petitions and applications are dismissed.
JUDGE APRIL 10, 2015