You may also like...
-
-
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11550 and 11551 of 2021 1.V.Gunasekaran. For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Raju For Respondent : Mr.R.Muthukumar , Therefore, it is presumed that the cheque that was in the custody of the Respondent was filled up and presented for an invoice of the year 2015 which is time barred. 9.As per the reported ruling in 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 2776 : (2012) 2 LW (Cri) 516 [Sama Dharman Proprietory M/s. Sri Sai Tex and another -vs- Natarajan] for a time barred debt a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be filed. If it is filed as proof of prior liability then in such circumstances under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, there must be separate and distinct promise by the person, who issued cheque that even though it is a time barred debt, he is ready and willing to honour the debt. In the absence of such acknowledgment of time barred debt, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioners herein had issued cheque bearing No.002882 for the prior liability that is for the invoice-cum-delivery challan of the year 2015 bearing No.MBSI/1662 is found unacceptable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is acceptable. Therefore, the objection by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and what had been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is to be considered subject to the evidence before the trial Court and the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked, is found unacceptable and unreasonable, particularly, in the light of the bank transactions which shows that the claim of the Petitioners that the cheque issued for the prior liabilities was misused by the Respondent is beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The Complaint in S.T.C. No.102 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Ambattur is quashed against the Petitioners. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 27.01.2023 SRM Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To The Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Ambattur. SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J. SRM Order made in Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2021 27.01.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published August 18, 2023
-
https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1728018553209868388?t=YdpsqYhkxM0gT3l-JZKYow&s=08 Thus, in the light of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that both the first and second respondent have committed a serious flaw in the decision making process and therefore, the impugned orders have to be held to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and consequently, the second respondent is directed to process the petitioner’s applications for refund and issue the refund within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Post the matters for filing compliance report of this order on 18.12.2023. 06.11.2023 sd Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no Note : Issue order copy on 20.11.2023. To 1. The Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals-1) O/o. the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-I) 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Division I, Puducherry Commissionerate, No.14, Municipal Street, Azeez Nagar, Reddiyarapalayam, Puducherry- 605 010. 3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, rep. by its Chairman, having Office at North Block, New Delhi- 110 001. 4. Union of India, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Commerce (SEZ Division) having Office at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 107. Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.Nos.23604, 23605 and 23607 of 2022 06.11.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 24, 2023