TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2010 from one Vinod Lodha of Sudha Finance. At the time of availing loans, she had given two blank cheques bearing Nos. 578186 and 578187, drawn on UCO Bank, Korattur Branch, Chennai and the petitioner had repaid the loan amount and got NOC from Vinod Lodha. However inspite of repeated demand, the said person has not returned the two blank cheques given as security. She was surprised to receive the legal notice dated 18.06.2014, for the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 578187, drawn on UCO Bank, Korattur Branch, Chennai, for a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the respondent herein. The said Vinod Lodha with an ulterior motive, to cheat the petitioner, had handed over the two blank cheques, given as security, to his son. When the petitioner alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount due and payable was paid, the cheques which were given as security was not returned back to the petitioner. The said Vinod Kumar Lodha had handed over the cheques to his son, who is the respondent herein and he made illegal demands on the petitioner and by using intimidation and coercive methods, the respondent had received totally Rs. 5,11,000/- from the petitioner and the petitioner was also forced to sign the Memo of Compromise dated 24.07.2014, prepared by the respondent. Inspite of getting the signature in the Memo of Compromise, the respondent had not returned the cheque bearing No. 578187 to the petitioner, but presented the same at the bank, which was returned. All of a sudden, the petitioner has received a legal notice from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86 was issued in favour of the respondent and the cheque was presented for collection on 28.08.2017, which was returned by the bank showing the reason as "Funds Insufficient. Such being the case, there was a legally enforceable debt as clearly mentioned in the Memo of Compromise dated 24.07.2014 and the same could not be denied by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and prays for dismissal of this petition. 7. The fact in the present case is not in dispute that there was a Memo of Compromise between the parties dated 24.07.2014. It is the claim of the petitioner that by force and intimidation, the said Memo of Compromise was entered into between the parties. Further it is adm....