In Crl.MC.No. 171 of 2019, AREEPLAVAN FINANCE vs STATE OF KERALA, the original complaints were dismissed by the court below for default on the sole reason that the complainant did not appear in person before
the court .
On appeal, the High Court at Kerala after examining the statutory position, and two Supreme Court judgments on the scope and purpose of Section 145 of the NI Act in Radhey Shyam Garg v. Naresh Kumar Gupta and Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India and others, decided that it is abundantly clear from the object of enactment of Section 145 of the N.I. Act and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court that the personal appearance of the complainant is not necessary for taking cognizance of the offence.
The rules of the Indian Bar Council prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. GM BOSU & Associates does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on 'ENTER', the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
EnterCancel
