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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2895

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI
L.N.IYYAPANE – Appellant
Versus
MURUGANANTHAM – Respondent


ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.446 of 2021 and he preferred this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the case in S.T.C. No.446 of 2021 on the file of learned Addl. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The case of the respondent is that for an urgent need, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- on 23.04.2020 on the strength of a promissory note, thereby he has issued a cheque bearing No.128756 dated 03.06.2021 drawn on Andhra Bank, Karaikal towards discharge of the said liability. When the cheque was presented on instructions of petitioner on 25.06.2021 at the respondent's bank, it was returned as “Account closed”. Thereafter, the respondent issued a demand notice dated 03.07.2021 to him and the petitioner had replied to the said notice. Accordingly, he preferred a complaint under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the alleged cheque in question was not issued by him nor he is having any legal liability to the respondent herein. Moreover, the cheque under possession was not issued in the individual name of petitioner, on 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