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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 540

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
D. K. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
P. K. Sajeendran – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:C.P. Peethambaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---

Judgment :

Would closure of an account at the instance of the drawee bank before issuance of cheque take the subsequent dishonour of that cheque as account closed outside the purview of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act")?

2. Petitioner before me faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Kannur in C.C.No.441 of 2000 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.90000/- from him on 20-03-00 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P2, cheque dated 22-05-2000. That cheque was dishonoured on 25-05-2000 as account was closed as proved by Exts.P1 and P3 and evidence of PW.1, manager of the drawee bank. As per his evidence account was closed on 03-08-1999. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 08-06-2000 intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. That notice was served on petitioner on 08-06-2000. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW.2 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, he had given a signed blank cheque to one Ramesan in the year, 1997 in connection with a transaction with him and that cheque was misused.

3. There is a content























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