Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 69

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
KALAMANI TEX – Appellant
Versus
P. BALASUBRAMANIAN – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):S. Nagamuthu, M.P. Parthiban, A.S. Vairawan, Mani Prabu, Santosh, R. Sudhakaran, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of appellate interference with acquittals under CrPC Section 378 and Article 136 of the Constitution in a case where two possible conclusions emerge from the evidence?

What is the effect of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon the accused after signatures on a cheque and a Deed of Undertaking are admitted or established?

What are the principles for awarding compensation in cases arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and can a private respondent seek such compensation when the appellant has already deposited the cheque amount with the Court?

JUDGMENT :

Surya Kant, J:

Leave Granted.

2. M/s. Kalamani Tex (Appellant No.1) and its managing partner–B. Subramanian (Appellant No.2) are in appeal challenging the judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur was reversed and the appellants have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NIA’). Consequently, Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/.

Facts

3. The instant proceedings have originated out of a complaint preferred by P. Balasubramanian (Complainant-Respondent) against the appellants. The respondent is the proprietor of a garment company named and styled as ‘Growell International’, which along with Appellant No.1 was engaged in a business arrangement, whereby they agreed to jointly export garments to France. Certain issues arose regarding delays in shipment and payment from the buyer, due to which, the appellants had to pay the respondent a sum of Rs 11.20 lakhs. To that end, Appellant No.2 issued a cheque on behalf of Appellant No. 1 bearing no.897993 dated 07.11.2000 in f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 69

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSEKALAMANI TEX – AppellantVersusP. BALASUBRAMANIAN – Respondent

What is the scope of appellate interference with acquittals under CrPC Section 378 and Article 136 of the Constitution in a case where two possible conclusions emerge from the evidence?

What is the effect of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon the accused after signatures on a cheque and a Deed of Undertaking are admitted or established?

What are the principles for awarding compensation in cases arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and can a private respondent seek such compensation when the appellant has already deposited the cheque amount with the Court?

Cases Referred (14)

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
KALAMANI TEX – Appellant
Versus
P. BALASUBRAMANIAN – Respondent