TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts, there is a specific finding of the appellate Court that the same cannot be accepted. Even so, the appellate Court makes an error of informing a finding of conviction on the basis thereof. Respondent/ complainant has admitted in cross that he has received back 576 skins. The Account Statements do not inform of any adjustment there towards. It is the contention of petitioner that in his reply notice it had been informed that about 5500 pieces of sheep nappa skins were defected. As stated supra, no rejoinder has been caused by respondent. A series of transactions between the parties is admitted. In the circumstances, the defence contention of a genuine dispute regards the dues has failed to receive consideration. The burden cast on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.11.2003 for ₹ 7,00,000/-, 373972 dated 30.11.2003 for ₹ 5,00,000/- and 373973 dated 01.12.2003 for ₹ 4,50,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Anna Salai Branch, Chennai, stood issued to him by petitioner towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation were returned unpaid for the reason insufficient funds. Respondent/complainant caused statutory notice and following the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints had been filed. 4. Details of witnesses examined and exhibits marked before the trial Court are as follows: C.C.No.8903 of 2004 C.C.No.8904 of 2004 No. of witnesses examined No. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bly been altered. This submission is made on visible alterations of case numbers. This Court sees such alterations as nothing more than a mistake and is unable to accept the contention that the same were made post trial. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amit Desai and another v. Shine Enterprises and another [2000 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 82] towards contending that filing of case u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be seen as one for enforcing a civil liability and as such the bar u/s.69 of the Partnership Act against an unregistered firm filing a suit for recovery of dues in a sum of above ₹ 100/- would apply. This Court is of the view that the decision relied on is erroneous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been no rejoinder caused by respondent. Ex.P2 in both cases are Statements of Account marked by respondent. Though invoice numbers have been provided in the Statement of Accounts, the particular invoices had not been marked before the trial Court. It is seen that payment to the tune of ₹ 43,07,000/- is acknowledged but dates of receipt thereof are not informed. The Statements of Account marked as Ex.P2 in both cases can only be seen as self-serving statements. Though the trial Court has accepted the Statement of Accounts, there is a specific finding of the appellate Court that the same cannot be accepted. Even so, the appellate Court makes an error of informing a finding of conviction on the basis thereof. In C.C.No.8904 of 2004, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
