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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1182

ARUNA JAGADEESAN
V. Barathidasan – Appellant
Versus
J. Ramu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. M. Karunanithi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Sundar, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy in Cr.M.P.No.3817 of 2009 in C.C.No.702 of 2006 dated 13.11.2009 declining to send the documents namely, cheque and promisery note for comparison by the hand writing expert.

2. The short facts are as follows:

The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant on 04.01.1997 and executed a pro-note in favour of the complainant for the repayment of the amount borrowed. When the complainant demanded for the repayment of the above said amount, the petitioner/accused in discharging of his partly liability issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 1309.1997 in cheque No. 0421786 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Saliyamangalam, Branch. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment to the City Union Bank limited on 24.09.1997 it was returned with an endorsement as ‘Insufficient Funds’. The said bank intimated the fact of dishonour to the complainant on 24.09.1997. Thereafter, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the petitioner/accused on 28.09.1997 calling upon him to repay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque















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