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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 543

R.MALA
M. Hemalatha – Appellant
Versus
D. Kannan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. SaiRam Associate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C.Manoharan

ORDER

These petitions have been filed to call for records pertaining to C.C.Nos.3088 and 3087 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners.


2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14829 and 15165 of 2014, who has been arrayed as A2 in C.C.Nos.3088 and 3087 of 2013 has come forward with these applications to quash the proceedings stating that she is not the drawer of the cheque and the cheques have been issued by one Murugesan, who is the first accused in the case and hence she has not committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as Act). Hence she has come forward for quashing the same.

3. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the proprietrix of M/s.Sri Balaji Dhall Mill and this respondent has supplied Dhall to M/s.Sri Balaji Dhall Mill and on behalf of the proprietrix, the husband of the petitioner, as an authorized signatory has issued the cheques and so the cheques were presented for encashment, which were returned as insufficient funds and after issuance of statutory notice under section 138(b) o







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