S. Dhanakodi vs A.S. Dwaragan on 26 April, 2001
J. Veeraraghavan V. Lalith Kumar, 1995 (III) C.C.R. 379.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.31 seconds)Documents citing
J. Veeraraghavan vs Lalith Kumar on 19 October, 1994
G.M. Mittal Stainless Steels Ltd. vs Nagarjuna Investments Trust Ltd. And ... on 10 March, 1995
8. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Janarthanam and Thangamani JJ. had occasion to consider the following question in J. Veeraraghavan v. Lalith Kumar [1994] 2 LW (Crl.) 663; [1995] 83 Comp Cas 853 (Mad) referred to it by Arunachalam J. (at page 859)
"When section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates deemed commission of an offence under two circumstances, namely, insufficiency of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of a person or it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, will a Magistrate be competent to take cognizance, on a private complaint, when the return by the bank, of the cheque, bears an endorsement 'account closed', or 'payment stopped' or 'refer to drawer' ?"
N. Doraisamy And Others vs Archana Enterprises on 13 January, 1995
44. On the two questions, viz.,
(1) will a Magistrate be competent to take cognizance of a private complaint, when the return by the bank of the cheque, bears an endorsement of "contingencies or eventualities" other than the ones mentioned in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ? and
(2) will it be permissible to invoke the inherent power of this court under section 482 of the Code to put an end to the prosecution merely because certain words in the statute, had not been reproduced in the complaint, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint discloses, taken in its totality, the ingredients of the offence alleged ? divergent views emerged from various High Courts, inclusive of this court and consequently, the above two questions had been referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement in the case of J. Veeraraghavan v. Lalith Kumar [1994] 2 LW (Crl.) 663; [1995] 83 Comp Cas 853, 880 (Mad) and the Division Bench (to which I was a party), has answered the questions as below :
N. Doraisamy And Another Etc. vs M/S. Archana Enterprises And Etc. on 13 January, 1995
divergent views emerged from various High Courts, inclusive of this Court and consequently, the above two questions had been referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement in the case of J. Veeraraghavan v. Lalith Kumar (1994) 2 Mad LW (Cri) 663 and the Division Bench, (to which I was a party) has answered the question as below :
File Of The Case Bearing No. 3368 /06 ... vs . Ved Bansal. He Has on 19 May, 2010
16 Counsel for the complainant has placed on record several judgments
CC no. 461/1/06/03 9/11
thereby submitting that where the account is already closed by the accused before cheque
is presented, it is covered u.s 138 N.I Act. He has further submitted that even if cheque is
given on an account which is already closed and the same is dishonoured on
presentation , offence u/s 138 N.I. Act is still made out. Further, it was held in
Shivendra Sansguiri Vs. M/s Adineo in II(1996) BC 569 of Bombay High court. It
was held in J.Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar in I(1995) BC 318 DB of Madras
High Court.
C Prasad vs M/S Lalit Asia Dwellings Pvt Ltd on 11 January, 2024
12. The counsel for respondent in his written
arguments as well as oral arguments has contended that
the return of cheque for the reason alternation requires
drawers authentication also attracts Section 138 of NI Act
for which he relied upon the judgment 1995 Crl.L.J. 1882
Veeraraghavan Vs Lalith Kumar wherein in para Nos.22
and 24 of the judgment has held return of cheque with
endorsement of bank of any contingencies or eventualities
even other than once mentioned in Section 138 would be
sufficient.
Vs. Reena 2012 (2010) 172 Dlt 561, P.M. ... vs . K.P. Charly, Crl. on 22 May, 2014
No. 3488 of 2006, decision dated 25.3.2009, Kerala High Court, J
Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar 1995 (83) Comp Ca 853 (Madras) in
support of his submissions. On the other hand, Sh. M.A. Niyazi, Ld. Advocate
for accused stated that accused has rebutted the presumption. He further
submitted that the complaint was not filed by a propertly authorized person and
CC No.560/11
Aum Imexco (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. NLP Organics Pvt. Ltd Works Page 3 of 4
the complainant also failed to meet its obligation as per the agreement dated
14.10.1997.
Vs. Reena 2012 (2010) 172 Dlt 561, P.M. ... vs . K.P. Charly, Crl. on 22 May, 2014
No. 3488 of 2006, decision dated 25.3.2009, Kerala High Court, J
Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar 1995 (83) Comp Ca 853 (Madras) in
support of his submissions. On the other hand, Sh. M.A. Niyazi, Ld. Advocate
for accused stated that accused has rebutted the presumption. He further
submitted that the complaint was not filed by a propertly authorized person and
the complainant also failed to meet its obligation as per the agreement dated
CC No.557/11
Aum Imexco (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. NLP Organics Pvt. Ltd Works Page 3 of 7
14.10.1997.
Vs. Reena 2012 (2010) 172 Dlt 561, P.M. ... vs . K.P. Charly, Crl. on 22 May, 2014
No. 3488 of 2006, decision dated 25.3.2009, Kerala High Court, J
Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar 1995 (83) Comp Ca 853 (Madras) in
support of his submissions. On the other hand, Sh. M.A. Niyazi, Ld. Advocate
for accused stated that accused has rebutted the presumption. He further
submitted that the complaint was not filed by a propertly authorized person and
CC No.558/11
Aum Imexco (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. NLP Organics Pvt. Ltd Works Page 3 of 7
the complainant also failed to meet its obligation as per the agreement dated
14.10.1997.
Vs. Reena 2012 (2010) 172 Dlt 561, P.M. ... vs . K.P. Charly, Crl. on 22 May, 2014
No. 3488 of 2006, decision dated 25.3.2009, Kerala High Court, J
Veeraraghavan Vs. Lalith Kumar 1995 (83) Comp Ca 853 (Madras) in
support of his submissions. On the other hand, Sh. M.A. Niyazi, Ld. Advocate
for accused stated that accused has rebutted the presumption. He further
submitted that the complaint was not filed by a propertly authorized person and
CC No.561/11
Aum Imexco (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. NLP Organics Pvt. Ltd Works Page 3 of 7
the complainant also failed to meet its obligation as per the agreement dated
14.10.1997.