Facts 2:

4. That the petitioner replied to the notice of respondent of 16/08/2016 which is mentioned in D-2 that the petitioner had no outstanding balance and it was told to respondent that the respondent should have torn the cheque and should not have used the cheque unfairly. 

Thus, the petitioner produced the facts in the honourable court on 08.09.2016 which are as follows for the proceeding of case. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Q: What are the other illustrations of cheating?