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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41266

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
K.Sundari – Appellant
Versus
C.A.R.P.Mari – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.V.Kathirvel Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Appadurai, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Ms.G.Dhanalakshmi

ORDER

The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, on the ground that A1 is working as a Principal of the college and A2 is the Managing Trustee of the college and the respondent is a building contractor and also happens to be the brother of A2.

2.An agreement was entered into and the services of the respondent was utilized for construction of a ground floor and computer hall for the college. The total expenditure for the construction was to the tune of Rs.1,49,64,700/-. This was also admitted by A2 and only a part amount was settled and for the remaining amount of Rs.98,07,207/-, a cheque was issued which was signed by A1. When the cheque dated 11.03.2020 was deposited for collection, it was returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. Pursuant to the same, the private complaint has been filed before the Court below.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4.The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2281 of 2021 is arrayed as A1 and it is stated that he was working as a Principal of the polytechnic college during the relevant point of time and he

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