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

2019 Supreme(SC) 43

R.BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE
Sicagen India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mahindra Vadineni – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and orders dated 14.11.2011 in Crl. O.P. No. 20401 of 2011 and 15.12.2014 in Crl. O.P.S.R. No. 55782 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in and by which the High Court has quashed the criminal complaints filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. For convenience, the facts in C.C. No. 4029/2010 (Crl. O.P. No. 20401 of 2011) are referred to. Case of the appellant-complainant is that they had business dealings with the respondents and in the course of business dealings, the respondents had issued three cheques viz.

1. Cheque 316693 dated 20.07.2009 for Rs.1,44,362/-

2. Cheque 316663 dated 30.07.2009 for Rs.4,26,400/-

3. Cheque 316692 dated 10.08.2000 for Rs.4,48,656/-

The three cheques were presented for collection and the same were dishonoured and returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The appellant-complainant had issued first notice to the respondent(s) on 31.08.2009 demanding the repayment of the amount. The cheques were again presented and returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The appellant had issued a stat












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