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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 255

R.SURESH KUMAR
N. Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
P. Damodarasamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : In-person.
For the Respondent:John Sathyan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment made by the learned I Additional Judge (TADA), Chennai, in Crl.A.No.73 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014, by and under which, the learned Judge has reversed the Judgment and conviction made by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.15490 of 2007 dated 06.03.2013.

2. The appellant is the complainant before the trial Court and the respondent is the accused. For the sake of convenience, they called as the complainant and the accused, respectively.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant for interest @ 24% per annum with an assurance that it would be returned back within a period of one month. Though the said amount was borrowed by the accused, he did not repay the same, as he assured. Therefore, according to the complainant, she had made repeated requests and demand, and in response to such repeated requests, the accused had issued a cheque No.330594 dated 21.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- drawn at Karnataka Bank Limited, Coimbatore.

4. The said cheque was presented at the complainant's Bank for collection and the same had


















































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