Allowed

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2022ALP/8/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 8 of 2020, the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction admitted an appeal against a Single Judge’s judgment. The court held an arguable case exists regarding the finding that a cheque was not drawn for a legally enforceable debt. The appeal was admitted and notice was issued to respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the Respondents.

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

SWAROOP Digitally signed bySWAROOP SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.07.0820:52:47 +0530

¶2

63 alp 8 of 2020.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2020

¶4

Ratansingh Gumnam Singh Bartawal
versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

…
Applicant

¶7

…
Respondents

¶8

Ms. Devyani Katira, for Applicant.
Ms. Neha Mane i/by Mr. Rajesh More, for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 7th JULY, 2022

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant.

¶13

2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 seeks time to work out

¶14

the matter.

¶15

3. The record indicates that the Application for leave is pending since long.

¶16

4. Perused the impugned judgment.

¶17

5. The learned Magistrate has held that there is compliance of the statutory

¶18

provisions. However, the point of legal enforceability of debt or liability was answered
against the complainant-Appellant.

¶19

6. An arguable case is made out as regards the finding recorded by the

¶20

learned Magistrate that the subject cheque was not drawn in discharge of legally
enforceable debt or liability.

¶21

7. Hence, Appeal is admitted.

¶22

SSP 1/2

¶23

63 alp 8 of 2020.doc

¶24

8. Issue notice to the Respondents.

¶25

9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 waives service. 10. Call R & P.

¶26

List in normal course.

¶27

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶28

SSP

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashalata H. Mhatre vs 1a) Shailaja Pradip Jog and Ors.

Abdul Mehmboob Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manik Gulab Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju @ Riyaj Gaus Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Baban Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Vitthal Waghmode Vs State of Maharashtra