TOTAL FINAELF INDIA LIMITED Vs. RASHMI PARNAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantM/s.Total Finaelf India Ltd. challenging order dated 17.02.2007 in Complaint Case No.5977/1/04 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by which the respondent was acquitted.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the written synopsis filed by the respondent. It reveals that the appellant filed a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondent committed default in making payments for the goods supplied to her being distributor. It was alleged that with great persuasion, the respondent issued nine cheques detailed in Para 06 of the complaint amounting to Rs. 11,08,546.78/- for the outstanding dues. The cheques when presented were dishonoured with the remarks 'not arranged for' vide bank return memo dated 21.10.1997 which was received on 12.11.1997. Demand notice dated 23.11.1997 sent to the respondent vide Registered AD was returned with the endorsement 'not met' on 02.12.1997. The respondent was served of the legal notice sent through UPC. The respondent failed to make the payment despite demand notice.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the complaint case was within limitation as the cause action arose on 02.12.1997 when the complainant came to know 'refusal' of the notice sent by Registered AD. The respondent, in the reply to the demand notice falsely alleged that she was served with the legal notice sent through UPC on 27.11.1997. The Trial Court fell into grave error in holding that the complaint case filed on 15.01.1998 was barred by limitation. He further urged that the cheques in question were issued by the respondent in the discharge of liability to clear the outstanding dues for purchase of lubricants sent through various invoices (Ex.CW-1/6 to CW-1/24). The distributorship agreement dated 17.04.1997 was proved as Ex.CW-1/4. The cheques in question were not given as 'security' as alleged. The respondent could not establish that goods supplied were defective; no such complaint was ever lodged by her with the complainant company.