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

R.S.RAMANATHAN
S. Prakash – Appellant
Versus
A. Palaniappan – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr.T.M.Hariharan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.M.Devaraj, Advocate

JUDGMENT

R.S.Ramanathan, J.—The complainant in C.C.No.351 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem is the appellant. The complainant filed the above complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “N.I.Act”) stating that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 17.5.2002 and executed a pro-note for the same and also issued a cheque dated 10.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on City Union Bank, Salem and the cheque was presented for collection on 10.12.2003 and the same was returned on 11.12.2003 by the bank on the ground that the account was already closed. Thereafter, notice was issued on 17.12.2003 calling upon the respondent to pay the cheque amount and the notice was received by the respondent on 20.12.2003 and thereafter, the respondent did not make any payment and therefore, the complaint was filed.

2. The appellant filed the complaint through his power agent P.Yuvaraj and examined the power agent as PW.1 and himself as PW.2 and marked the power document as Ex.P.1, Cheque dated 10.12.2003 as Ex.P.2, information received from the bank as Ex.P.3, Copy of the notice dated 17.12.2003 as Ex.P.4 and the Ack



















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