TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The complainant alleged that on receipt of a sum of ₹ 85,000/- from his as loan, the first respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque on 3.9.1996; that the cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for want of funds vide Exts. P2 and P3; that he sent Ext. P4 notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment and that Ext. P5 is the envelope whereby the notice was returned. He also stated in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for the rejection of the complainant's case are the following:- (i). In the complaint he failed to divulge the date on which the amount was lent to the accused; the purpose of loan and the date of advancement of the amounts. (ii). According to PW1, the accused demanded the loan amount for starting a business with his friend. However, the name of the particular friend is not let known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque was issued by the accused for a sum of ₹ 85,000/- on 3.9.1996 towards the debt arising from borrowal of ₹ 85,000/- from the complainant. In his evidence when the specific date was asked for he stated that according to his memory the loan transaction took place on 4.7.1996. In a case of the present nature where in the answer to the questions under Section 313 or even in the cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof was issued within the time allowed by law and that the notice sent to the accused was returned unserved with the endorsement unclaimed . It is clear from the decision in Bhaskaran v. Balan (1999(3) KLT 440) that the endorsement 'unclaimed' can be taken as refusal and that for compliance with Section 138 of the N.I.Act it is not necessary that there should be actual delivery of the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
