Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
P. PichaiMuthu Rep. By Power Agent Mr. P. Sivamuthu – Appellant
Versus
D.R. Premchander – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
This Criminal Appeal had been filed to set aside the Judgment dated03.03.2018 passed by the learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.190 of 2016 reversing the Judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed in C.C.No.135 of 2007 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – III, Saidapet.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant is the Complainant, who had filed the complaint in C.C.No. 135 of 2007 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the Appellant, he retired from Government service and was planning to start a business. At this stage, the Respondent/Accused approached and requested him to invest in the business of trading packaged drinking mineral water carried on by him and assured of a reasonable return. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited by the Appellant in the business run by the Respondent and on such deposit, the Appellant was inducted as a partner. According to the Appellant, the Respondent assured him of Rs.10,000/- as monthly return which will be paid on or before 10th of every month. An agreeme
The dishonor of a cheque issued as security does not negate liability under Section 138 if the conditions of notice service and the enforceable debt are established.
The presumption of proper service of statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld unless the accused proves evasion, affirming the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
In cases involving dishonor of cheque, service of statutory notice is valid if returned with an endorsement 'refused', establishing the accused's liability under Section 138.
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper service of demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the consequences of such service on the acquittal of th....
The presumption of service of legal notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is premature if filed before the st....
Proper service of notice under Section 138 is crucial, but if sent to the last known address, it is deemed sufficient, maintaining the presumption in favor of the complainant.
Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid if delivered to a family member, establishing liability unless rebutted.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
