N.i.act latest judgement
manoj joshi
(Querist) 31 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
respected sir
i want to pay all your attention on latest judgement of sc on n.i.act
it holds jurisdiction of courts where the cheque has been dishonored..
im not agree with such a bad judgement
i want to get your help to understand what stand to take in court so that my cases coudnt transferred
Anirudh
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear Mr. Joshi,
Pl. appreciate.
The decision has been rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
All the courts down below are bound to follow it.
When you say you do not agree with such a bad judgment, it means you yourself have very strong reasons/points for saying so. Advance those points itself in your argument. Be sure, your matter will once again travel up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unless in the mean while the Apex Court decides the SLP filed before it against the Bombay High Court decision which has distinguished the at par cheques.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear Manoj Ji,
I fully agree with your comments on the decision of SC regarding jurisdiction for filing/contesting cases u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which has been squeezed to the place where banker of drawer is situated and not where it was dishonoured.
However, in the given circumstances of the case in hand the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court has given detailed reasoning in the best of their wisdom, which can be commented by anyone/every one including ourselves.
Another judgement delivered by Bombay High Court for the cheques "at par" is still under consideratioon before Supreme Court, wait and watch.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 31 October 2014
In one stroke the APEX COURT has given relief to millions of accused in cheque bounce cases.
The case was before SC since 2009 and decision came in 2014. During this the APEX COURT had gone through all conflicting judgments in this matter and came out with clear verdict.
Particularly for AT PAR concept the court has dealt in following words...
An interpretation should not be imparted to Section 138 which
will render it as a device of harassment i.e. by sending
notices from a place which has no casual connection with the
transaction itself, and/or by presenting the cheque(s) at any
of the banks where the payee may have an account.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 31 October 2014
""im not agree with such a bad judgement""
Dear MANOJ,
I oppose:
I disagree with your comments..
APEX COURT is not a fool. very wise judgement
I happened to appear in a case filed at Gurgaon.
Accused dealing was totally in Mumbai.
Complainant is INDIA BULL, Who finance money to needy.
The Law Asso rule to keep a Local Joint Advocate jointly. Charges heavily.
Accused, already in debt and paying heavy interest to Money Lenders, is harassed by such giant Financial company to travel 1500 km away to defend himself.
Outside court insist on LOCAL SURETY/ BAIL , AND IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO GET ANY PERSON THERE AT FAR AWAY PLACES.
LAKHS OF DEBTOR ARE HARASSED TO COMPEL THEM TO PAY .
138 NI IS misused by majority of MONEY LENDERS
mONEY LENDER PAY 1ST CHEQUE SAY 1 LAKH, AFTER OBTAINING 2lAKH PRO NOTE, ASKED HIM TO WITHDRAW MONRY & RETURN CASH,
HE GIVES ANOTHER 1 lAKH CHQ FOR HIM AFTER DEDUCTIN 5% MONTHLY INTEREST.
So Money Lender pays 95000/- , collecting Pro note and Proof of 2 Lakh Payment, and later file complaint at very far off places.
Accused is unnecessarily harassed and deprived of justice.
SO I FULLY SUPPORT APEX COURT JUDGEMENT.
Harrased Husband 498A ie relaxed by SC
Harraes poor debtor under 138ni is relaxed by SC.
NAMO POLICIES ARE SHOWING,
TOMATO Rs. 7 per Kg.
Black Mkt ; Money Squeezers , who increases price, to accumulate money out of poor citizens are put to toughness.
VERY GOOD MOVES!!
ajay sethi
(Expert) 31 October 2014
it is an excellent judgement by SC .
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 31 October 2014
The Judgement is applicable till set aside by higher court or changed by law and it does not make any difference whether some one agree to it or not.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 31 October 2014
unfit query...author makes his opinion..no question is asked by him.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Until and unless the judgement is reversed by the another bench of supreme court, the judgement is valid and bind the lower courts.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 01 November 2014
earlier the banks were harassing defaulters.
A borrower located in Lehra Gaga and his cheque will be presented at Karaikudi. The prosecution will be filed at Karaikudi. HQ of lender be at New Delhi.
A borrower will be located at Kalavad and cheque could presented at Campbell Bay. HQ of lender be at Mumbai.
A borrower may be located at Havelock and his cheque be presented at Gaggal. HQ of lender be at Bengaluru.
A borrower could be located at Chaara and cheque be presented at Piravom.HQ of lender be at Gauhati.
Now a poor lender should spend time and money to go to borrowers place (may be face his goons) stay there in a hotel and then think of recovery that too within stipulated time.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 01 November 2014
I know these locations are not commonly known but are part of Indian map where human being resides and banks are now located at village level.
Above are only hypothetical examples.
manoj joshi
(Querist) 02 November 2014
respected sir
with due regard i want it make it clear that n.i. act is not applicable for money lendering..
its clearly violation of jurisduction mentioned in c.p.c and cr.p.c
cheque holder git right to use this cheque according to his convenience with law
if some one goes out thoroughly with ds judgement ...justic thakur somewhere not comfortable whith the view taken by his two other judges...
plz read the judgement carefully before giving any comment....
Anirudh
(Expert) 02 November 2014
Dear Mr. Manoj,
Agreed, N.I. Act is not applicable to Money lending. Perfectly fine.
I think you will agree the decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod concerns with N.I. Act and nothing to do with money lending.
If that is so, where does it lead you?
Now coming to C.P.C. and Cr.PC. The Apex Court has very clearly and lucidly held that the provisions of CPC have no application - see paragraph 14 of the decision.
After your prompting, I once again read the Apex Court decision very thoroughly, but could not find from it, as to where "justice thakur somewhere not comfortable whith the view taken by his two other judges..."
Can you please point out where from you get that view about Justice Thukur's uncomfortableness?
I would love to know.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
I agree with the views of expert Mr. Anirudh.The latest question/doubt raised by the author is unfounded. the latest post by the expert is self explanatory leaving nothing more to add.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 November 2014
off late there had been a tendancy of banks to throw loans without much bothering about the repaying capacity merely on the basis of PDC and then invoke S/138 at a far off place and demand pound of flesh. The system is getting choked with such litigation.
courts and RBI has already put some checks on recovery through goons (in a manner practiced by zamindars 150 year back).
So banks have to be compelled to satisfy themselves about repaying capacity before lending so that such cases do not crop up in so large quantity.
manoj joshi
(Querist) 04 November 2014
respected sir
i ve gone through all the views given by experts........i think none is seriously concern about the judgement .
its very simple according to n.i.act sec 138, if cheque got dishonored holder of cheque has right to issue a notice and file a complaint
but according to this judgement jurisdiction will be decided by the bank where the cheque has been dishonored
soo now the situation is this
....if a person who does his business in delhi .. another business man comes to him and do some transaction with him and for deal he gives him cheque of Mumbai where he came from ,and the businessman of Delhi accepts it with trust bt mean while this cheque got bounced from Mumbai branch
now according to this judgement delhi based businessman have to go mumbai to fight his case coz cheque is dishonored from Mumbai branch.
now here is my problem starts.......
sooo its my humble request to experts ..now tell me where should be the jurisduction to file complain...........
Anirudh
(Expert) 04 November 2014
It is your view "i think none is seriously concern about the judgement." (certainly not a correct view from any angle) The very fact that you did not bother to indicate why you think so, is proof enough that your view has no legs to stand.
According to the latest SC Decision, in your given situation, jurisdiction is Mumbai, where the drawer bank is situate.
manoj joshi
(Querist) 04 November 2014
mr.anirudh im very much thankfull for your concern
bt dont u think that it in unfair practice n it will effect whole system mostly business man
one more thing i want to inform u that in ds judgement one word is specially mentioned... magistrate has to determind jurisduction logically
one more thing dont u feel that this judgement will violet legal rights of holder of cheque in due course
meaning thereby accused is violating the law n complainant is punished
think over it
manoj joshi
(Querist) 04 November 2014
i request all the members plzzz consider my facts and reply
