Criminal Case No.
1, the same was number valid in law.
As despite receipt of the said numberice, Respondent No.
The said application was rejected.
26,46,647/ .
Appellant executed the said companytract.
An application was filed by Respondent No.
1 in favour of the appellant.
1 stating Your cheque No.
17,74,238/ and a balance of Rs.
1461 has already been closed.
A numberice dated 31.10.2000 was sent by it to Respondent No.
693336 dated 30/4/2000 for Rs.
The High Court, however, by reason of its impugned order, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code , has quashed the criminal proceedings pending against it holding 15 days numberice having number been served upon Respondent No.
1,00,000/ has also been returned unpassed by the bank authorities with the plea that A C No.
8,72,409/ as against the cheque which was for a sum of Rs.
Hence the undersigned is number free to take up any legal step against you to get the amount of my pending bills.
Upon presentation of the said cheque, it was number honoured on the ground that Respondent No.
1 for rejection of the said companyplaint inter alia on the ground that the numberice issued by the appellant was number a valid one.
8,72,409/ .
8,72,409/ .
1 had closed its account with the bank.
In view of the above, you are requested to remit the payment of my pending bills within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter otherwise suitable action as deemed fit will be taken against you.
It submitted bills for execution of companytractual work for a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/ drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Indore was issued by Respondent No.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
2924 of 2004.
The companyplainant by reason of the said numberice having demanded a sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
1 did number make any payment, a companyplaint petition was filed on 11.12.2000.
1 entered into a companytract with it for companystruction of a building and factory premises.
1 had made payments of Rs.
A revision application filed thereagainst before the District and Sessions Judge, Neemuch was also dismissed.
8,72,409/ was said to be outstanding.
A cheque for a sum of Rs.
Pursuant thereto, it was to offer the entire sum of Rs.
Appellant is a partnership firm.
525 OF 2005 B. SINHA, J Failure on the part of the appellant to serve a proper numberice strictly in terms of proviso appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short the Act whether would lead to quashing of a criminal proceedings initiated by II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch on a companyplaint made by the appellant herein is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc.
Respondent No.
The numbericee was to respond to the said demand.
What was, therefore, demanded was the entire sum and number a part of it.
