Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. There is no valid reason indicated in the complaint for the petitioner to borrow a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- on 25.10.2012 towards loan from the first respondent. When the petitioner was travelling to Chennai in the month of May 2012, he missed some of the signed blank cheques bearing account No.10270100162269 of Federal Bank, Parasalai Branch and immediately, the petitioner intimated to the bank and closed his account on 22.05.2012.

9. The learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the petitioner is the authorised signatory to issue cheque in favour of the College and the Correspondent of the College has been arrayed as first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent in the cheque case. In fact, the petitioner and the second respondent had approached the first respondent for development of the College and administered fund and thereby the first respondent paid a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- on 25.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner gave two cheque leaves, one is for the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- and another one is for the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- of Federal Bank, Parasalai Branch, on 06.03.2013. When the cheques were presented for collection, they were returned as payment dishonour. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a notice through his lawyer demanding him to pay back the cheque amount. The said notice was received by the petitioner and the first accused and they sent a reply on 23.05.2013 with false averments.

11. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has relied on the judgment in P.N.Salim Vs. P.J.Thomas and another, reported 2004 CRI.L.J.3096, Kerala High Court.

12. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

13. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the first respondent has filed a cheque complaint as against the second respondent and the petitioner in STC.No.1278 of 2015. In the said cheque case, this petitioner has been arrayed as second accused and the Correspondent of the College is added as first accused. According to the first respondent, this petitioner is the authorised signatory for the Malankara Catholic College, Mariagiri, Kanyakumari District and the petitioner was dealing with the financial matter of the said college. The first accused/second respondent is the correspondence of the above said college. The petitioner and the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- for development of the College and thereby the petitioner and the second respondent issued two cheques, one is for Rs.4,60,000/- and another one is for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn by the Federal Bank, Parasalai Branch. When the same were presented for collection, the cheques were returned and then a notice was issued. The said notice was served to the petitioner and the second respondent. Despite receipt of the notice, they have neither re-paid nor suit reply notice. Hence, he filed the said case.