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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 2491

T.SUDANTHIRAM
A. R. M. Nizmathuallah – Appellant
Versus
Vaduganathan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Prabu Rajadurai, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.28 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to attract section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque in question must have been issued for the legally enforceable debt or other liability. The case of the complainant itself is that the amount was borrowed by the accused in the year 1997 and the date of the cheque is 20.11.2003 and as such, the cheque in this case is not issued for the legally enforceable debt. The debt was time barred. Therefore, the entire prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the debt was barred by limitation, by issuing a cheque-dated 20.11.2003, the accused/petitioner had entered into an agreement and thereby promising to pay the debt barred by limitation of law. Such an agreement is a valid contract as per section 25 of the

























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