Partly allowed

G.Venkat v. M/S.Kerry Reliable Logistics

Madras HC4 Feb 2015CRL OP/15220/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the third petitioner, aligning partner induction with the cheque date, dismissing the petition against the first two petitioners as no longer pressed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the complaint against the third petitioner; dismissed the petition against the first two petitioners as they did not press the appeal.

G.Venkat Vs M/S.Kerry Reliable Logistics — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:04.02.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.15220 of 2010

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

¶8

1.G.Venkat

¶9

2.G.Jeevanandam 3.G.Vijay @ G.P.Vijayakumar ..Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.Kerry Reliable Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Reliable Freight Forwarders Pvt., Ltd.,

¶12

No.92, Thambu Chetty Street, EMR Complex, 1^st Floor, Chennai-600 001.

¶13

(Represented by its Accounts Executive and Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Sagayam).

¶14

..Respondent / Complainant

¶15

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.92 of 2009 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and to quash the complaint against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.P.Muralidharan

¶18

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2009 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶19

On earlier hearing on 22.01.2015, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made an endorsement in the petition “As instructed insofar as petitioners 1 and 2, I am not pressing this petition''. In view of the above said endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as against the petitioners 1 and 2 as not pressed.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for 3^rd petitioner and the respondent.

¶22

Briefly the case of the third petitioner is that, the respondent filed a complaint in C.C.No.92 of 2009 by stating that the 1^st accused firm, in which this third petitioner and also other two petitioner No.1 and 2 were partners and on behalf of partnership firms issued a cheque No.205949 dated 21.11.2007 in favour of respondent as drawn on State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Tiruppur for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The above said cheque was presented for enhancement but, it was returned on 20.05.2008 with the endorsement ''Funds Insufficient'', which was intimated by the Bank on 28.05.2008. The respondent has issued statutory legal notice on 24.06.2008 to all the accused (i.e.,) these three petitioners and first accused in the main case. Since no reply for the above said notice and also the payment was not made, the respondent has given complaint before the Magistrate Court under Sections 138 to 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending as C.C.No.92 of 2009.

¶23

During the pendency of the above said proceedings, the three petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4, filed this petition to quash the proceedings. As already stated the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made an endorsement as not pressed the petitioner as against the Petitioners 1 and 2 / Accused 2 and 3. The learned counsel submitted that third petitioner (A4) was not a partner at the time of issuing cheque and this third petitioner (A4) was inducted as a partner only on 23.03.2009 and therefore, the complaint against third petitioner (A3) is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also accepted the above said contention that this third petitioner / 4^th accused inducted as partner, only on 23.03.2009 under Form-A of Registrar of Firms.

¶24

In view of the above said submissions, C.C.No.92 of 2009 against the third petitioner / 4^th accused is liable to be quashed. But, this criminal original petition regarding 1^st and 2^nd petitioners (A2 and A3) as already ordered, dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated:20.3.15

¶26

True Copy

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

¶30

The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

¶32

+1 cc to Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, advocate,SR.6418

¶33

+1 cc to Mr.P.Muralidharan, Advocate,SR.6134.

¶34

ssi(co) krd 26/3

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.15220 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Venkat v. M/S.Kerry Reliable Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkat v. M/S.Kerry Reliable Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baskar Rao Vs M.K.Nandagopal

Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Dr.Masila Vs State by

N.Dhanasekaran Vs a.Rajendran

R.Shankar Vs State by

Dharmalingam Vs Sub Inspector of Police