M/S MAYOR SPORTS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER vs M/S S RAI AND CO. — CRM-M/26475/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010784732026

Filing Number

CRM-M/36555/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/26475/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Coram

Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S MAYOR SPORTS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Adv. PRIDHI JASWINDER SANDHU

  2. 2.M/S S RAI

  3. 3.NITIN MAYOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S S RAI AND CO.

  2. 2.M/S S RAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sanjay VashisthView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Mayor Sports Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking to quash a cheque bounce complaint (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act) filed by S. Rai and Co. The court found that while the petitioner made an oath-bound statement expressing willingness to pay, only a photocopy of a demand draft was produced without delivering the original, and petitioners failed to appear on multiple trial dates and Lok Adalat hearings, suggesting the statement was intended to mislead rather than demonstrate genuine settlement intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/26475/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Mayor Sports Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking to quash a cheque bounce complaint (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act) filed by S. Rai and Co. The court found that while the petitioner made an oath-bound statement expressing willingness to pay, only a photocopy of a demand draft was produced without delivering the original, and petitioners failed to appear on multiple trial dates and Lok Adalat hearings, suggesting the statement was intended to mislead rather than demonstrate genuine settlement intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case