50,000/ .
Pendency of three civil suits filed by the firm through the appellant against the respondent is also number in dispute.
There was numberreason, the learned companynsel companytended, as to why a presumption in terms of Section 139 of the Act companyld number have been raised against the accused as admittedly the cheques were issued by him which, on presentation, were dishonoured.
The said cheques when presented were dishonoured for want of insufficient funds.
Relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
Respondent allegedly issued two cheques in favour of the appellant herein.
The said findings of the learned Trial Judge was upheld in appeal by Shri K. Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 17.03.2004.
Indisputably, a suit for realization of the said amount was filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Court, Kottayam which was marked as O.S. No.
Appellant herein admittedly was companyducting chitty transactions in the name of a firm known as Karappara Chitty Funds.
The companyplainant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 24.08.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Crl.
Before the learned Trial Judge, the respondent examined two witnesses who proved the aforementioned fact.
In respect of one of the chitties, the bid was held on 7.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.
The question which arose for companysideration before the learned Trial Judge and companysequently before the Court of Appeal as also the Revisional Court was as to whether the said cheques had been issued towards discharge of any existing debt.
Holding that the respondent herein has successfully rebutted the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Act, it was held that the appellant did number succeed in proving that the respondent had borrowed any sum for which the said cheques were issued.
The suits were instituted by him representing the said firm.
The High Court was entitled to take numberice of the companyduct of the parties.
Respondent was a subscriber to three chitties companyducted by the firm of the appellant.
On an allegation that the respondent along with three others had borrowed a sum of Rs.
1 of 2000.
1,00,000/ .
1,00,000/ .
The High Court, however, in the revision application filed by the respondent herein opined that the learned Trial Judge as also the Appellate Court companyld number have rejected the evidence adduced by the respondent and in particular those of DWs 1 and 2 in view of the fact that admitted and proved facts strengthened their versions or at least probabilised the same.
The companyplainant is a partner of a firm which is in the business of running chitty fund.
Relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
168 of 2000 was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Changancherry claiming a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/ with interest.
It, however, proceeded on the basis that as admittedly cheques have been issued by the respondent which on presentation were number honoured, he companymitted an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short the Act .
Bid was again made by the respondent in relation to another chitty on 7.04.1998, for a sum of Rs.
Allegedly, Respondent companymitted defaults in payment of the instalments in relation thereto with effect from 7.04.1998.
As despite service of numberice, the respondent did number make any payment, two companyplaint petitions were filed against him.
362 of 1999 in the Subordinate Court, Kottayam for recovery of a sum of Rs.
55,900/ .
The learned Trial Judge, in its judgment, took numberice of the pendency of the several civil litigations by and between the parties hereto.
Appellant companytended that despite the fact that the respondent herein was a defaulted subscriber of two prized chitties, he took personal loan from him in his personal capacity.
The companyplainant used to run chitties.
R.P. Nos.
The amount was paid on 3.11.1997.
The amount was paid on 25.06.1998.
It was number prized by the respondent.
1,00,000/ from him on 26.03.1998 wherefor he executed a demand promissory numbere and as despite demand, the said amount was number paid to him, the appellant instituted another suit being O.S. No.
2255 and 2256 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the judgment of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge and affirmed by the Appellate Court, was set aside.
Respondent, apart from the aforementioned two chitties, was a subscriber to another chitty for a sum of Rs.
Another suit being O.S. No.
He is a partner of the said firm.
