Disposed

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Limited v. K.Mohammed Gani

Madras HC13 Mar 2024CRL OP/4928/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal with leave petition challenging acquittal in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint arising from a chit transaction. The petitioner argued the cheque issuance and signature were not denied and the chit pass book was with the respondent. The Court found force in the submissions and granted leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order.

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Limited Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O .P.No.4928 of 2024 in

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.4928 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.8995 of 2024

¶3

Crl.A . SR.No.8995 of 2024

¶4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶5

The petitioner as complainant had filed a private complaint against the

¶6

respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

¶7

in S.T.C.No.4322 of 2015. The trial Court, by judgment dated 11.12.2023, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent, against which, the present appeal and leave petition.

¶8

2.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent in

¶9

this case is a subscriber to the Rs.10,00,000/- chit with the petitioner and he had been a successful bidder. Thereafter, he had not paid the subscription amount for the chit and in discharge of the said liability, he issued a cheque

¶10

for Rs.7,26,000/-. The defence taken by the respondent is that the chit transaction pass book not produced. It is clearly answered by the petitioner

¶11

that the pass book would be available with the respondent. The respondent

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/3

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.4928 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.8995 of 2024

¶14

not denied the issuance of cheque, signature found in the cheque. He takes a

¶15

plea that one Tiruvengadam had given the respondent's address to the chit and he was the subscriber to the chit and the respondent is not liable to pay the amount but on the contrary, the cheque and signature are not denied. The trial Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment, referred to the defence of the respondent and stated that the chit pass book not produced. In the evidence, answer had been clearly given by the petitioner that the pass book is only with the subscriber, i.e. the respondent. The respondent not produced the pass book, not questioned about the chit but takes a defence about Tiruvengadam being the subscriber to the chit.

¶16

3.Finding reason and force in the submission of the learned counsel

¶17

for petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave is granted.

¶18

13.03.2024

¶19

rsi

¶20

Note: Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/3

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.4928 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.8995 of 2024

¶23

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶24

Rsi

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.4928 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.8995 of 2024

¶26

13.03.2024

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/3

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Limited v. K.Mohammed Gani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Limited v. K.Mohammed Gani

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

Vellaiyan Vs Inspector of Police

Raja Vs State Rep by

Nithiyakala Vs The State of TamilNadu, Rep. by

Kamala Vs P.N.Vishnu

Rayappan Vs State by

S.Vijendran Vs M.Sreelakshmi