Disposed

M/S.Full Moon Industrial v. T.Babu M/a 36 Years

Madras HC18 Nov 2025CRL A/600/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant appealed dismissal of its cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Respondent offered settlement; complainant accepted Rs.60,000 in lieu of the Rs.1,04,317 dishonoured cheque, paid partly online and partly by bank instrument. Appeal disposed of and acquittal confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded: complainant received Rs.60,000 in lieu of the dishonoured cheque for Rs.1,04,317; acquittal of respondent in STC No.49 of 2013 confirmed.

M/S.Full Moon Industrial Vs T.Babu M/a 36 Years — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶7

M/s.Full Moon Industrial Ceramics (P) Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director, G.Venkatesan, S/o.P.Ganesan, No.30-A/1, Mudalithottam, Periyasemoor, Erode-638 004 Erode( Taluk and District).

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

T.Babu, S/o.Late V.Thiagarajan, No.65/B-2, Ganesapuram, New Street, Namakkal, Namakkal (Taluk & District).

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

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

¶15

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶16

This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment made in STC No.49 of 2013 dated 20.09.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC-I), Erode.

¶17

For Appellant(s): M/s.M. Vignesh for Mr.C.S.Saravanan

¶18

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.D.Johnson

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment made in STC No.49

¶21

of 2013 dated 20.09.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC-I),

¶22

Erode.

¶23

2.The appellant in this case is the complainant in STC No.49 of 2013. A

¶24

case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the

¶25

appellant against the respondent. The trial Court, by judgment dated 20.09.2016,

¶26

dismissed the complaint. Against which, the present appeal.

¶27

3.The contention of the appellant is that the respondent had worked under

¶28

him as Assistant Manager (Marketing) and during his employment in the year

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶32

2012, to meet out his marriage expenses, he has availed personal loan of Rs.1

¶33

lakh, agreeing to pay the same in 20 equal monthly instalments with interest @

¶34

15.25%. At the time of disbursal of the loan, the appellant had issued two

¶35

cheques for Rs.50,000/- each in favour of the respondent. The respondent has paid interest of Rs.1295/- upto the month of June, 2012 and thereafter, failed to make any payment. The respondent had resigned his job on 10.07.2012 and on

¶36

06.10.2012, he sought for rendition of his account and thereafter, the account was worked out on discharge of principle and interest. The respondent had

¶37

issued a cheque drawn on the Indian Bank, Perundurai Branch for Rs.1,04,317/-. When the cheque was presented, the same was dis-honoured

¶38

and thereafter, a statutory notice was issued and the respondent had sent a

¶39

reply with false allegations and hence, the complaint has been filed.

¶40

4.The appellant examined himself as PW1 and the Assistant Bank Manager was examined as PW2, and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Exs.P7 and P8 are

¶41

the appointment orders and the loan agreements. Despite the appellant producing of relevant documents, the trial Court failed to consider the evidence

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶45

in proper prospective and dismissed the case. Against which, the present appeal.

¶46

5.The learned counsel for the respondent appeared and submitted that

¶47

without going into the merits of the case, he is ready to settle the issue. The

¶48

complainant is agreeing for settlement considering the previous employment of

¶49

the respondent and also the passage of time and agreed to receive Rs.60000/- in lieu of Cheque, Ex.P1 for Rs.1,04,317/-. Now out of this Rs.60000/- , a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid through G.Pay on 13.11.2025 and Rs.50,000/- through cheque drawn on Axis Bank, Thindal Branch and he also produced the copies of the Demand Draft drawn on Axis Bank, for Rs.50,000/- and G.Pay before

¶50

this Court.

¶51

6.Today, the appellant appeared through Video Conferencing and

¶52

admitted to receive the said amount and also agreed to withdraw the appeal.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶56

7.Recording the same, the appeal is disposed of and the acquittal of the

¶57

respondent in STC No.49 of 2013 is confirmed.

18-11-2025

Index:Yes/No

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶62

¶63

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

¶64

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶65

¶66

1.Learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC-I), Erode.

¶67

2.T.Babu, S/o.Late V.Thiagarajan, No.65/B-2, Ganesapuram, New Street, Namakkal, Namakkal (Taluk & District).

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶71

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. dn

¶72

CRL A No. 600 of 2017

¶73

18-11-2025

¶74

¶75

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

M/S.Full Moon Industrial v. T.Babu M/a 36 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Full Moon Industrial v. T.Babu M/a 36 Years

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

F.N.Durai Vs The Superintendent of Police

M/S.Nex Tech Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs v.Sree Kumar

B.U.Muthusami Vs D.Kiruthika

Chakravarthy Vs Jayaprakash

Babu @ Nagababu Vs State Rep by

Asha Panickar Vs The State Rep, by Mr.Praveen