Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
P.Vasudevan Proprietor of M/s. Metro Retail and Trade – Appellant
Versus
Usha Rani W/o.Dilli Babu, Proprietrix of M/s . Unique Branding – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash section 138 ni act trial. (Para 1) |
| 2. delay and notice defects alleged. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. timely filing; other notice irrelevant. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. disputed facts for trial; petition dismissed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The petitioner / accused who is facing trial in S.T.C.No.17604 of 2025 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-I at Allikulam, Chennai, has filed this quash application.
2. The primary ground raised by the petitioner is that the complaint has been filed with a delay of 14 days and there is no petition filed under Section 142 (b) of the NI Act, seeking for condonation of delay. Hence, the cognisance taken by the Trial Court is bad in law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that in the statutory notice issued, it does not mention when the cheques were presented or when they were dis-honoured. He further submits that two notices were issued for the very same cheques, one is by Ms.Usha Rani of M/s Unique Branding and another by Y.Shankar Raju, Proprietor of M/s SSS Enterprises. The cheques disputed in this case have been deposited by two different
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
