K R INDIRA Vs. G ADINARAYANA
LAWS(SC)-2003-10-91
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 09,2003
K.R.INDIRA
Appellant
VERSUS
G.ADINARAYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SAXONS FARMS [REFERRED TO]SUMAN SETHI VS. AJAY K CHURIWAL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
CREF Finance Limited (Earlier called ITC Classic Real Estate Finance Ltd.) Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Pramod Kumar VS. Sree Shanthi Homes Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director and K.C. Chandrashekar Raju, Major, Managing Director, [LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-252] [REFERRED TO]J. P. GIRISH VS. RAMAKRISHNA MILLS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-702] [REFERRED TO]
MISHRA AND MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN S O MADANLAL KHANDELWAL VS. PROPRIETOR DAULAT ENTERPRISES [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
TCI FINANCE LTD VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-147] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2012-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALKUMAR M. JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-366] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2024-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS. HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SARVAIYA VS. NIKI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-8-377] [REFERRED TO]
WILLIAM ROSARIO FERNANDES VS. CABRAL AND CO [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
N K JAIN VS. ZAHID ALI [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
NILESH KUMAR LUKAND VS. NIRMAL BARDIYA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-370] [REFERRED TO]
MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. PEC LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-231] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE CORPORATION VS. ANILBHAI PURANBHAI BANSAL - DIRECTOR FOR & BEHALF [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR ARYA VS. DALEL SINGH AHLAWAT [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
PARMATMA MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
JAYATUBHAI ABHALBHAI MAIDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-12-322] [REFERRED TO]
TCI FINANCE LIMITED SECUNDARABAD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR SARMAH VS. VIVEK AGARWALA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
GOKULDAS VS. ATAL BIHARI [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL BUILDERS VS. ARIHANT FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL [LAWS(SC)-2007-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
P LINGAPPAN VS. R PALANISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-568] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH NARANG VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANT SOMANI VS. SHARAD GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARTH AND CO AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-560] [REFERRED TO]
ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE VS. VINAY MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
VUPPALA VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO VS. TULLURI CHIT FUNDS P LTD [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-130] [REFERRED TO]
GADALE VASANTHA VS. M/S.CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
MATTA RAMBABU VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2011-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
A KRISHNA REDDY VS. P V R S MANI KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGHAL VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2006-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL CHANDRA MITRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
MAIKAAL FIBRES LTD. VS. RAJRANI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-185] [REFERRED TO]
V B C.FINANCE AND LEASING LTD VS. FINE PLAST POLYMERS LTD [LAWS(APH)-2012-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
RATNAGIRI CEMENTS PVT LTD VISAKHAPATNAM VS. RAO N SONS MODERN APPLIANCES VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2011-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
D.S. NANDA VS. HEIGHT EXPORTS PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-202] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SAHNI VS. AURO SPINNING MILLS [LAWS(HPH)-2008-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH THAKUR VS. ABDUL GANI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMARAJ VS. RAJESH KUMAR T S [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
K VASANTHA KUMARI VS. D DEVENDRA REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2007-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
DOLMA DEVI VS. ROSHAN LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2023-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
RAHULBUILDERS VS. ARIHANT FERTILIZERA AND CHEMICAL [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
M C GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2011-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAVATHI AUTOMOBILES VS. MAHAVEER URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2013-7-389] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAKAR VS. A SHOBA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-234] [REFERRED TO]
KAMATCHI METALS VS. A.R.DIE CASTS INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-341] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUMAYEE RAMAN VS. R PADMA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
HONEY VERMA VS. PIYUSH NAUTIYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2024-4-174] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VS. HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-1587] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN DENIM LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-105] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL AGGARWAL VS. RAGHU VIAS [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL AGGARWAL VS. PRAMOD VIJAY KHULLAR [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-172] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CARISSA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS. M/S. MAHABAL REALTY PVT. LTD. & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-188] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINI CHANDRA VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-60] [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRASHEKAR RAO VS. KUTAMBA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH HUMNABADKAR, DIRECTOR VS. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-390] [REFERRED TO]
CHARASHNI KUMAR TALWANI VS. M/S MALHOTRA POULTRIES, NARAINGARH ROAD, BARWALA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
C.V. RAJAN VS. ILLIKKAL RAMESAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
S PADMAVATHY VS. SUBBULAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2006-3-415] [REFERRED TO]
BANKAT AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
MALOOK CHAND AGROILS LTD VS. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
ARSHAD ABDUL WAHID QURESHI VS. ASIF ABDUL WAHID QURESHI [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
ARSHAD ABDUL WAHID QURESHI VS. ASIF ABDUL WAHID QURESHI [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
CANBANK MUTUAL FUND VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
ARYAN BIOLOGICAL CORPORATION VS. VISHWAKARMA METAL BOX [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-132] [REFERRED TO]
INDU SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
T.R. PACHAMUTHU VS. M/S. M.M. FINANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
SAI INFRA EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. L&W CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-569] [REFERRED TO]
R RAMESH CHAND VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2011-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)An interesting question in the background of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act) arises in these appeals.
(2.)Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows : Appellant-Dr. K. G. Ramachandra Gupta (in Crl. A. No. 1137/2001) and his wife, Smt. K. R. Indira (appellant in Crl. A. No. 1136/2001) filed complaints alleging that the respondent-Dr. G. Adinarayana, a friend of the appellant-Dr. K. G. Ramachandra Gupta acted in a manner unbecoming of a friend. In essence, two doctors were trying to use instruments in fighting out a bitter legal battle and not trying to save a person fighting for life. Three separate complaints were filed alleging that loans were advanced by the appellants to the respondent for which he executed pronotes with a view to ensure repayment of loans with interest. Four cheques were issued, two in the name of the husband and two in the name of the wife. As the cheques bounced when presented for collection with an endorsement not arranged for, notices were issued calling upon the accused-respondent to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days from the receipt of notices. Though the accused-respondent received the notices, he did not choose to respond and after waiting for the stipulated period of 15 days, complaints were filed by the appellants. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainants failed to prove that the cheques were issued by way of repayment of the loans advanced by the complainants and accepted the contention of the accused that blank cheques given by him in good faith were misused. He further held that the accused has not committed any offence under Section 138 of the Act. Three appeals namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 270/1996, 271/1996 and 272/1996 were filed by the two appellants. The appeals were disposed of by the impugned common judgment.
(3.)One appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 272/1996 was allowed and the respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The other two appeals were dismissed and the order of acquittal was affirmed. The basic conclusion which formed the foundation for upholding the acquittal was that the notices sent did not meet the requirements of law, more particularly, the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act.
(2.)Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows : Appellant-Dr. K. G. Ramachandra Gupta (in Crl. A. No. 1137/2001) and his wife, Smt. K. R. Indira (appellant in Crl. A. No. 1136/2001) filed complaints alleging that the respondent-Dr. G. Adinarayana, a friend of the appellant-Dr. K. G. Ramachandra Gupta acted in a manner unbecoming of a friend. In essence, two doctors were trying to use instruments in fighting out a bitter legal battle and not trying to save a person fighting for life. Three separate complaints were filed alleging that loans were advanced by the appellants to the respondent for which he executed pronotes with a view to ensure repayment of loans with interest. Four cheques were issued, two in the name of the husband and two in the name of the wife. As the cheques bounced when presented for collection with an endorsement not arranged for, notices were issued calling upon the accused-respondent to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days from the receipt of notices. Though the accused-respondent received the notices, he did not choose to respond and after waiting for the stipulated period of 15 days, complaints were filed by the appellants. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainants failed to prove that the cheques were issued by way of repayment of the loans advanced by the complainants and accepted the contention of the accused that blank cheques given by him in good faith were misused. He further held that the accused has not committed any offence under Section 138 of the Act. Three appeals namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 270/1996, 271/1996 and 272/1996 were filed by the two appellants. The appeals were disposed of by the impugned common judgment.
(3.)One appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 272/1996 was allowed and the respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The other two appeals were dismissed and the order of acquittal was affirmed. The basic conclusion which formed the foundation for upholding the acquittal was that the notices sent did not meet the requirements of law, more particularly, the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.