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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 60

K.NATARAJAN
Ashok Muthana – Appellant
Versus
Escorts Finance Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M/s K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Advocate for Petitioners.
M/s.D. Mohanraj, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. In this petition, the petitioners who are accused 2 to 8 before the trial court are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8736 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

2. Theshort facts are:

The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the Act for short) against the petitioners and three others, as the cheque issued for Rs.24,99,840 had been dishonoured. Accused No.1 is the company and accused 9 and 10 are the signatories of accused No.1 except the bald allegation that the petitioners are directors, no overact has been attributed to them in the complaint. The complaint without even ascertaining the fact the petitioners 3 and 6 are dead and petitioners 4,5 and 7 have retired from the company two years ago, has filed the complaint. Petitioners 4,5 and 7 are only employees of the first accused company and they left the services of the company in 1997 itself, but they have been wrongly described as Directors of the company.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended except the vague allegation in the complaint that the petitions are a











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