2001 (8) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. By impugned judgment and order dated 27-11-2000 the High Court of Madras allowed Criminal O.P. No. 14007 of 1999 and quashed the proceed- ings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act') on the ground that there was breach of mandatory provision in issuing the notice as the cheque was returned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has relied upon deposition of PW1 Gopal Krishnan, Company Secretary of the appellant-company, PW2 Shri Murlidharan, Manager, Bank of Baroda, who has stated that on 13-1-1994 cheque was received back by the bank with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' and that debit advice was sent to the complainant on 17-1-1994 as 14 to 16th were holidays for Pongal. 5. In our view, the High Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omplaint it has been stated that complainant had received intimation with regard to the return of the said cheque from his banker on 13-1-1994. However, he submitted that this is apparent mistake and for explaining that mistake the appellant has led the evidence before the Trial Court. Undisputedly, he pointed out that in the State of Tamilnadu 14-1-1994 to 16-1-1994 there were Pongal holidays and....