TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd status before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts, which lead to the filing of the present Revision Petition are as follows : (i) The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, praying for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner/defendant to return all the blank cheques specified in Annexure-A of the plaint and for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from encashing the said blank cheques by presenting into the bank and also to restrain the petitioner/defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 doing their business in the suit property. (ii) The above said suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 on the premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues were obtained towards security and no cheque was given towards any legally enforceable liability. The defendant having illegal possession of the blank cheques, giving threats to the plaintiffs to present the cheques towards their unlawful gain and sending notices with false averments. The plaintiffs had taken earnest efforts to settle the matter amicably, which ended in vain since the defendant has not come forward for the terms of settlement and also refused to return the cheques. With these averments, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 4. Now, the petitioner/defendant, seeking to strike off the plaint, has come forward with the present revision petition. 5. Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiated by the defendant under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and absolutely, the suit is not maintainable and the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint without entertaining the same. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, in support of his contentions, relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in "T.Arivanandam versus T.V.Satyapal and another" reported in 1977 (4) SCC 467 and "M/s.Frost International Limited versus M/s.Milan Developers and Builders (P) Ltd. and another" (Civil Appeal No.1689 of 2029, dated 1.4.2022). With these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would urge this Court to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.1746 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the contention of the petitioner in the commercial suit. The contention that the petitioner herein is trying to blackmail the third respondent and harassing her has no basis and accordingly, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has opined that such allegation is vague and bald. Considering all aspects, the Commercial OS.No.7 of 2022 was decreed by a reasoned order. 12. On perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Frost International Limited vs. M/s. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited and another, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder: "35. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter which has to be considered in an appropriate proceeding to be initiated by defendants on account of dishonour of the said cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The plaintiff can always prove that it had no legal liability or debt to be discharged vis-a-vis defendant no.1 under the terms of the MoU, if any proceeding is to be initiated by defendant no.1 on account of the dishonour of the said cheque. Further, if defendant no.1 is to seek any relief for the nonsupply of 3876 MT of iron ore fines by the plaintiff under the very same MoU then the plaintiff is entitled to take appropriate defences as are available in law. If the plaintiff has a grievance against the defendants and particularly defendant no.1, arising from the MoU, suc....