Sri B L Chidananda vs Sri B S Venkatadri on 11 August, 2009

 

Iyengar advised the accused to make the repayment and it is

ultimately on 21.12.2003 that the accused promised to repay

the amount and expressed some financiai difficulty.toiyards..the

repayment of the liability and issued   

Rs.5,00,000 each totaling to Rs.20,00,'O0O/--  ¢vef',.o£lg it

year. I-I also promised that the checiu.es:i'.yVill  

and when presented. The fourr'eheques.__  dated"?

15.1.2004

, 15.4.2004, 15;,,9.2oo{1L..a.u£i¢1–_1’a.i2.ao04..,.

3. The complainant’ Viallegesif.Vthatidfitterthe issuance of
these cheques, funds and with
an intention:_tgi_ ‘contended that he has
been coerced Vgave instructions to the
Bank td.__stopiA__The complainant presented the
cheque and it was returned with

an en-gio1*sement» as’ payment stopped by the drawer and the

V” samevdiwaslconirnunicated to the complainant. The complainant

issued pthefrlvemand notice and likewise, in respect of the two

othe1’=..__cheques3; the presented them for encashment and these

i’ ‘ cheques were also returned with similar endorsement. After the

issu,.anee of the notice, the accused gave a reply making a claim

there was force and threat for issuance of the cheques by

DC