SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 304

S.RAJENDRA BABU, B.N.KIRPAL
Bilakchand Gyanchand Company – Appellant
Versus
A. Chinnaswami – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Six cheques were issued in favour of the appellant herein. The cheques were signed by A. Chinnaswami, Managing Director of Shakti Spinners Ltd. When the cheques were presented for payment, they were dishonoured on the ground that "sufficient funds were not available and exceed arrangement". A notice was then sent by the appellant which the respondent refused to accept. This was followed by a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopda, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra. On the complaint being filed, a process was issued against the accused.

3. The respondent moved an application before the Magistrate asking him to recall the process. Having failed in this attempt, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that notice under Section 138 was sent by the appellant herein to A. Chinnaswami at his office address but this could not mean that the notice was sent to the Company itself. On this ground alone, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint which was fi




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top