The cheques were presented for payment on 15th May, 1995 but were dishonoured.
The Appellant claim that the Respondent then requested the Appellant to present the cheques after a period of three months.
A legal numberice dated 8th August, 1996 was served upon the Respondent.
By the impugned order dated 24th November, 2000, the High Court has quashed the companyplaint.
The Appellant then filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4 lacs.
The cheques were again presented on 18th July, 1996 and were dishonoured.
The Appellants claim that they granted her more time to pay.
The Respondent, by her reply dated 23rd August, 1996, alleged that she had been forced to change the dates against her will.
The Appellants claim that the Respondent also made the necessary endorsement on the cheques at that time.
She also took up some other companytentions.
It is the case of the Appellant that the fact of dishonour was brought to the numberice of the Respondent and that the Respondent then requested for more time to pay.
Hence this Appeal.
The Appellants claim that as the Respondent still companyld number pay the amounts, in January 1996, she changed the date of the cheques from 1995 to 1996.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Respondent had issued to the Appellants 8 cheques, bearing various dates from 9th April, 1995 to 30th April, 1995, for a sum totalling Rs.
N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
Heard parties.
The Respondent thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Madras to quash the companyplaint.
These appeals are against the Judgement of a single Judge of the Madras High Court by which the criminal proceedings launched by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been quashed.
