Dismissed¶123

Tamilnadu Industrialinvestment v. M/S.Kamadenu Motel

Madras HC26 Feb 2026CRL A/277/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; complaint by company through authorised officer; Board Resolution authorisation to prosecute; limitation 45 days from notice service; statutory notice Ex.P5 served 01.01.2000; complaint filed 17.02.2000 time-barred; appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415; powers of appellate court against acquittal; TIIC loan and dishonoured cheque Rs.15,64,376/-; One Time Settlement Rs.40 lakhs rejected; mediation failed; Madras High Court CRL A No.277 of 2010; M.Nirmal Kumar, J.; acquittal confirmed; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal of the respondents rendered by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in C.C.No.327 of 2000 dated 09.12.2009 is confirmed. ¶123

Tamilnadu Industrialinvestment Vs M/S.Kamadenu Motel — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the acquittal of the respondents rendered by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in C.C.No.327 of 2000 dated 09.12.2009 is confirmed.

¶123

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was barred by limitation, the statutory notice having been served on 01.01.2000 and the complaint filed on 17.02.2000 against the outer date of 15.02.2000. +2 more

¶118

Court's answer

The statutory notice (Ex.P5) was served on the respondents on 01.01.2000; the complaint ought to have been filed on 15.02.2000 but was filed on 17.02.2000, i.e., beyond the limitation period; the procedure under Section 138 NI Act is procedural/mandatory and must be strictly followed.

¶118

Ratio / Principle

Though PW1 stated that a Board Resolution of the year 1978 existed, no Board Resolution or authorisation was produced despite specific questioning of his competence; he joined the company only after the loan was granted and, except for marking documents, could not answer for the transaction; the trial Court therefore rightly dismissed the complaint.

¶118

Key takeaways

Applying the principles illustrated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka ((2007) 4 SCC 415) on the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.ratio¶122

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant, Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC), against the acquittal of M/s.Kamadenu Motel and its proprietrix R.Subbulakshmi in a Section 138 NI Act case (cheque No.271684 dated 01.12.1999 for Rs.15,64,376/- drawn on SBI, Dharmapuri, dishonoured on 24.12.1999 for insufficiency of funds; C.C.No.327 of 2000, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri; acquittal dated 09.12.2009). Held, dismissing the appeal and confirming the acquittal: (i) the statutory notice was served on 01.01.2000 and the complaint, filed on 17.02.2000 against the outer date of 15.02.2000, was beyond the limitation period — the procedure under Section 138 NI Act must be strictly followed; (ii) though PW1 spoke of a Board Resolution of 1978, no resolution or authorisation was produced despite specific questioning of his competence, and PW1, who joined the company only after the loan was granted, could not speak to the transaction, so the trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint; (iii) following the principles in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka ((2007) 4 SCC 415) on appellate review of acquittals, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Mediation (18.06.2024 to 12.09.2024) had failed; OTS offers of Rs.33 lakhs and then Rs.40 lakhs (with a Rs.5 lakhs bonafide cheque) were rejected by TIIC's letter dated 26.11.2025.

¶1

CRL A No.277 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 27.11.2025 DELIVERED ON : 26.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL A No. 277 of 2010

¶7

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Rep. by D.Devaraj DDDC Building (Upstairs), Pennagaram Road, Dharmapuri.

¶8

Appellant(s)/Complainant

¶9

Vs 1.M/s.Kamadenu Motel Rep by its Proprietrix, R.Subbulakshmi No.610, Virupachipuram, Salem Hosur Road, Dharmapuri – 5. 2.R.Subbulakshmi Proprietrix M/s.Kamadenu Motel 36, Appavoo Nagar, Dharmapuri – 630 701.

¶10

Respondents/A1 & A2

¶11

PRAYER: The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pending in C.C.No.327 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, issue notice to the

¶12

1/25

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

G.Venkatanarayana Vs State Represented by Inspector of Police

G.Venkatesh Vs Velumyle

K.Sivakumar Vs v.Shanmugasundram

A.Madesh Vs P. Arjunan

Mrs. Nirmala Devi Vs Mr. Anandakumar

P.Murali Vs M/S.Airmedia Technologis Ch