9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention raised by the petitioners does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the specific statement in the statutory notice and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed - Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. - Crl.O.P.No.23129 of 2011, M.P.No.1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2018 - Rmt. Teekaa Raman, J. For the Petitioners : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.S.Mukunth for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates and ORDER This criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.T.C.No.330 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Coimbatore. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for determination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany had issued a cheque dated 13.09.2010 in favour of the complainant as signed by 2nd and 3rd accused jointly being the Directors of the 1st accused company for a sum of ₹ 30,000/- drawn on India Overseas Bank of Alandur Branch of Chennai, towards the part payment of said balance amount due to the complainant. iv) Later, when the complainant had presented the said cheque on 13.09.2010 for collection through their account at UCO Bank Ltd., Coimbatore Main Branch, it had been returned on 04.09.2010 as dishonoured, stating the reason as Exceeds Arrangement . A sum of ₹ 125/- was debited to the complainant's bank account towards service charges. v) The further averment is that knowingly well that their cheque would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. So, the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 11.10.2010 to all the accused, which they acknowledged had on 13.10.2010, for which, the accused neither sent any reply nor come forward to settle the amount. The further averment is that the accused Nos.2 to 4 being the Directors of 1st accused Company, are responsible for the entire affairs of the same and personally involved in the above matter as stated above for issuance of the cheque in question and made the complainant prosecuted. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the cheque amount is for ₹ 30,000/-, whereas in the statutory notice, an omnibus claim has been made calling upon the petitioners to pay the value of the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
