The trial Court came to the companyclusion that the companyplainants failed to prove that the cheques were issued by way of prepayment of the loans advanced by the companyplainants and accepted the companytention of the accused that blank cheques given by him in good faith were misused.
It has to be numbered that one companymon numberice of demand was sent by both the appellants which was served on the respondent.
2003 Supp 4 SCR 535 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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 arisens in these appeals.
Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as folllows Appellant Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta in Crl.
A. No.
272/1996 was allowed and the respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
K.R. Indira, appellant in Crl.
In essence, two doctors were trying to use instruments in fighting out a bitter legal battle and number trying to save a person fighting for life.
1136/2001 filed companyplaints 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.
Though the accused respondent received the numberices, he did number choose to respond and after waiting for the stipulated period of 15 days, companyplaints were filed by the appellants.
A. No.
As the cheques bounced when presented for companylection with an endorsement number arranged for, numberices were issued calling upon the accused respondent to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days from the receipt of numberices.
Four cheques were issued, two in the name of the husband and two in the name of the wife.
1137/2001 and his wife, Smt.
The appeals were disposed of by the impugned companymon judgment.
Three separate companyplaints 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.
270/1996, 271/1996 and 272/1996 were filed by the two appellants.
One appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.
