At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL
For the Appellants: Manu Mridul, Surya Kant, AOR. For the Respondents: Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR (Not Present).
Judgment Text
1. The matter has been called out twice, but no one is present on behalf of Respondent No.1.
2. Respondent No.1 had preferred two complaints against the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that two cheques issued by the appellants for Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.1,29,043/- had been dishonoured.
3. Notices were sent by Respondent No.1 to the appellants to the effect that the aforesaid cheques could not be encashed. The appellants sent replies to the notices in which it was stated, inter alia, that demand drafts in lieu of the two cheques were couriered to Respondent No.1.
4. Without mentioning this fact, Respondent No.1 preferred complaints against the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. On the basis of the complaints, summons was issued to the appellants. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred writ petitions being Nos.1403 of 2007 and 1404 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 27th September, 2007.
6. The High Court took the view that whether the demand drafts had been received by the complainant/Respondent No.1 and whether the demand drafts were against the repayment of the amounts concerning the dishonoured cheques are matters of evidence.
7. We find from the replies sent by the appellants to the notices received from the complainant/Respondent No.1 that the demand drafts were in fact in lieu of the dishonoured cheques. There is nothing on record to suggest to the contrary or that the complainant/Respondent No.1 had not received the demand drafts. As mentioned above, in spite of the matter having been called out twice, there is no one present on behalf of the complainant/Respondent No.1 to even deny the receipt of the demand drafts.
8. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the replies given by the appellants to the notices sent by Respondent No.1 ought to
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
be accepted as correct. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Trial Court are quashed and the appeals are allowed.
