M RAMESH Vs. VANKADARA SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that cheque dated 11-1-2003 for Rs.2 lakhs drawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, issued by the petitioner on behalf of Ceema Cotton Traders, in his favour, was returned on the ground of "insufficient funds" and that in spite of his issuing statutory notice on 5-8-2003, informing the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque with a demand for payment, petitioner failed to pay the amount, first respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against the petitioner which was registered as C.C. No.460 of 2003. This petition is filed to quash the said complaint.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, but not the petitioner, is the proprietor of Ceema Cotton Traders, on whose behalf the cheque was drawn and so petitioner cannot be made liable under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) The specific case of first respondent, in the complaint, is that petitioner drew the bounced cheque in his favour. That cheque, as per the averments in the complaint, was returned on the ground of "insufficient funds", but not on the ground that the signature of the drawer does not tally with the specimen signatures of the account holder. So, prima facie, petitioner has to be taken to be the owner of the Ceema Cotton Traders.