Remanded

M/S.Mohan Breweries and v. the State Bank of Hyderabad

Madras HC11 Apr 2022CRL OP/26249/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal original petition seeking quashing of cheque bounce proceedings. The Court found no merit but directed the trial court to consider settlement evidence before deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to present settlement details and records before the trial court; Trial Court directed to dispose case on merits.

M/S.Mohan Breweries and Vs the State Bank of Hyderabad — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.26249 OF 2016 AND CRL.M.P.NO.13055 OF 2016

¶6

1. M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleris Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, Sri. M. Naddagopal, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, Phase I, Third Floor, No.605, 606, TR Sundaram Avenue, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006. 2. M.Naddagopal 3. Aravind Nandagopal ... Petitioners .Vs. 1. The State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Ground Floor, 45, II Line Beach, Chennai - 600 001. Rep., by Manager, N.Raghavan. 2. Natarajan Nandagopal 3. Shoba Natarajan 4. Sindura Arvind 5. Ramesh Babu 6. Sumati Ramesh Babu ... Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER:-

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the C.C.No.2069/16 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Karunakaran

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition is filed to quash the C.C.No.2069/2016 pending on the file of 8th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

¶13

2. C.C.No.2069/2016 was filed for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in the complaint shows that the first accused company is the limited company and it is represented by its Chairman, the second accused. First accused availed various credit facilities from the State Bank of India which included the complainant bank. First accused represented by its Managing Director, the third accused executed relevant security documents at the time of availing credit facilities. First accused defaulted in payment of monthly installments in Term Loan Account. The suit in O.A.No.111/2014 was filed for recovery of dues before DRT-II, Chennai and that was decreed on 02.03.2016. The complainant bank initiated recovery proceedings against the first accused and its directors second to eighth accused. First accused represented by the second accused has issued a cheque bearing No.615762 dated 31.03.2016, drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Chennai for a sum of Rs.2,90,00,000/-, as part payment of the outstanding loan amount. This cheque was presented for collection through complainant's main branch on 08.06.2016. It was returned by the bankers on 09.06.2016 for the reason "funds insufficient". A demand notice dated 29.06.2016 was sent to the accused seeking payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. That notice was received by the accused. Thereafter, the accused had not paid the amount. Therefore, the complaint.

¶14

Challenging this complaint, petitioners/accused filed this petition for quashing the proceedings.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the monetary issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant/respondent had been settled and the credit facility availed by the petitioner had been closed as on 24.11.2021. He

¶16

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

¶17

filed copy of the letter received from State Bank of India on 26.11.2021.

¶18

Considered the submission and perused the records.

¶19

The letter dated 26.11.2021 from State Bank of India

¶20

through the Managing Director-M/s.Mohan Breweries Distilleries Limited, has no specific details about the loan transaction, the credit facility availed and closed. It is not known whether it relates to the loan transaction concerned in C.C.No.2069/2016. The complaint allegations clearly made out a case for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in this petition. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan transactions had been settled between the parties, the petitioner is directed to present the settlement details with relevant records before the concerned Court. On such filing of the records, evidence and settlement, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai is directed to dispose the case on merits and in accordance with law.

¶21

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

¶28

1. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

¶29

2. -Do Thro the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶30

CRL.O.P.NO.26249 OF 2016 AND CRL.M.P.NO.13055 OF 2016

¶31

KK(CO) PBS/29/04/2022

¶32

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

M/S.Mohan Breweries and v. the State Bank of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Mohan Breweries and v. the State Bank of Hyderabad

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

Saradha Ammal Vs J.Sridhar

K.Kalaikovan, Mba, B.L., Vs the Director General of Police

Mr.Ayyampalayam Venkatesan Arun, Liquidator for Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. Vs a.Subramanian

State Rep. by Vs Tr.P.Madhesan, Male Aged

M.Manimaran Vs State Rep by

P.B.Edwin Prabakar Vs the State Rep.by