The case involves seven criminal appeals arising from identical judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court, which impugned revisional court orders emanating from complaints filed by the appellant against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The appellant filed complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act against L.D. Textile Industries and four others for dishonor of cheques.
The accused company claimed it was declared 'SICK' by BIFR and was under a restraint order.
The cheques in question were allegedly issued in 2001, while the BIFR restraint order was dated 21.08.2000.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's petitions, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered the impact of Section 22 of SICA and Section 22A on proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Sign in to view the parties.
BIFR issued a restraint…
Cheques were a…
The case involves seven criminal appeals arising from identical judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court, which impugned revisional court orders emanating from complaints filed by the appellant against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The appellant filed complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act against L.D. Textile Industries and four others for dishonor of cheques.
The accused company claimed it was declared 'SICK' by BIFR and was under a restraint order.
The cheques in question were allegedly issued in 2001, while the BIFR restraint order was dated 21.08.2000.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's petitions, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered the impact of Section 22 of SICA and Section 22A on proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
BIFR issued a restraint…
Cheques were a…