te ORDER PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. A short matter which could have been disposed of at the hearing held on 8.8.2007 was required to be reserved for judgment for the reason learned counsel for the respondent failed to search the relevant case law. A matter which is clearly covered in favour of the respondent viz-a-viz petitioner no.2 could have been disposed of on relevant judgment been cited. 2. It is expected from members of the bar to research and cite latest judgments on a point in issue. 3. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2005) 4 SCC 417 Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh & Anr., learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act was barred by limitation viz-a-viz first petitioner. It was however urged that the complaint was within limitation and was maintainable against the second petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had responded by urging that since the cheque

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =