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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 3449

K.MOHAN RAM
Nataraj @ T. Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
P. Venkatachalam – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:V. Ayyadurai, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----

Judgment :-

1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records comprised in C.C. No.1295 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode and to quash the same.

2. Though the respondent, had been served and his name shown in the cause title, he is neither appearing in person nor through counsel and hence in his absence the Petition is being taken up for final disposal.

3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are set-out here-under:

Since the cheque issued by the petitioner to the respondent herein was returned/unpaid the respondent issued a statutory notice on 7. 2006, which was served on the petitioner on 17. 2006. The lest date for filing a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was 28. 2006, but admittedly the Complaint came to be filed only on 9. 2006 i.e., after the delay of 10 days. But the complaint was not accompanied with any Petition to condone the said delay of 10 days, but yet the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case as

C.C. No.1295 of 2006 and had ordered issue of process to the acc







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