Advocates:
V. G. PRAGASAMK. V. VIJAYAKUMAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1173-1174 of 2001

Special Leave Petition (crl.) 289-290 of 2000

PETITIONER:

M/S M. M. T. C. LTD. & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M/S MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA P. LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/11/2001

BENCH:

K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted.

Heard parties.

These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 18th December, 1998.

By this common Judgment two complaints, filed by the appellants, under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been quashed.

The appellant is a Government of India Company, incorporated under

the Companies Act. The appellant has a Regional Office at Chennai. The

1st respondent is also a Company. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were/are the

Directors of the 1st respondent Company. It is stated that 2nd respondent has

now died.

The appellant and the 1st respondent entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding dated 1st June, 1994. This Memorandum of Understanding

was slightly altered on 19th September, 1994. Pursuant to the Memorandum

of Understanding two cheques, one dated 31st October, 1994 in a sum of Rs.

20,26,995/- and another dated 10th November, 1994 in a sum of Rs.

22,10,156/-, were issued by the 1st respondent in favour of the appellant.

Both the cheques when presented for payment were returned with the

endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". Two notices were served by

the appellant on the 1st respondent. As the amounts under the cheques were

not paid the appellants lodged two complaints through one Lakshman Goel,

the Manager of the Regional Office of the appellant.

Respondents filed two petitions for quashing of the complaints. By

the impugned order both the complaints have been quashed.

At this stage it must be mentioned that respondents had also issued, to

the appellants, four other cheques. Those cheques were also dishonoured

when presented for payment. Four other complaints, under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, had also been filed by the appellants.

Those four complaints had also been lodged by the same Shri Lakshman

Goel. In those four cases the respondents filed separate applications for

discharge. Those discharge applications were on identical grounds as urged

by the respondents in the two petitions for quashing the complaints. The

Magistrate accepted the contention and discharged the respondents. The

High Court allowed the Revision filed by the appellants and set aside the

Order of discharge. The High Court held, as between the same parties, that

the Magistrate had erred in holding that the complaints filed by Lakshman

Goel were not maintainable. The High Court held that, at this stage, it was

not possible to accept defence that complainant/appellants were not entitled

to present the cheques as respondents had expected the goods. The High

Court restored the four complaints and directed the Magistrate to proceed

with the trial in accordance with law. The respondents filed SLPs before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

this Court which were summarily dismissed.

In this case the respondents have taken identical contentions in their

petitions to quash the complaints viz. that the complaints filed by Mr.

Lakshman Goel were not maintainable and that the cheques were not given

for any debt or liability. It was pointed out to the learned Judge that,

between the same parties and on identical facts, it had already been held that

as case for discharge was made out. Yet the learned Judge chose to ignore

those findings and proceeded to hold to the contrary.

In the impugned Judgment it has been held that the complaints filed

by Mr. Lakshman Goel were not maintainable. It was noticed that in those

two complaints, at a subsequent stage, one Mr. Sampath Kumar, the Deputy

General Manager of the appellant was allowed to represent the appellants.

The High Court held