A quashing petition against a cheque-dishonour summoning order argued the returning memo on record related to a different cheque. Since dishonour of the cheque was admitted, the court left the memo's evidentiary value to the trial court and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~71
ASHISH JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Luthra, Advocate
versus
ASHISH GUPTA .....Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 13.05.2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 02:54:59
instrument No. 000912 for INR 2,75,351/-. A copy of the dishonoured cheque and the returning memo has been annexed with the petition. He argues that the proceedings before the Trial Court are thus liable to be quashed as the requisite returning memo has not been placed on record.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 13, 2025/ab
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 02:54:59
1 issue framed by the court
Should the summoning order and proceedings in the Section 138 NI Act complaint be quashed because the returning memo on record pertains to a different cheque?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashish Jain
Ashish Gupta
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
