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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 877

S.M.SIDICKK
K. N. Sadagopan – Appellant
Versus
T. C. Govindarajan – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:S. N. Amaranth, A. Ragunathan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

These are five petitions filed by the Petitioner/accused under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C. No. 1067/94, 1071/94, 1070/94, 1069/94 and 1068/94 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and quash the same

2. All these five Criminal Original Petitions were heard together, and the petitioner and respondent are one and the same in all these five petitions, and the contentions raised by them are similar, and these five petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order

3. The material allegations in these five petitions are identical and they are as follows :-

The petitioner was in need of capital for his business. The respondent offered to provide financial help and paid Rupees three lakhs on 17-5-1993. An agreement was reduced into writing by which clause 5 the petitioner has to pay Rs. 15, 000/- per month apart from 50% of the profits. Clause 6 provides that if the petitioner (sic) wants to withdraw his amount, he should give one months notice after a period of one year. Later the respondent pressed for his money back against cl. (6) of the agreement. Since the petitioner was not having ready cash, the petitioner gave 15 post dated c










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