138 n.i.act
jasvinder
(Querist) 15 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
the applicant is a partnership financier firm and financed to one under hire-purchase agreemrnt.the accused gave cheque and dishonoured and filed case agaist him.every thingh was proved but at advanced stage accused told that the applicant partner firm had not filed authority letter from partner to file case as such magistrate is in doubt whether to aquit the accused .any clear case law please.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 15 April 2012
One more Law Point I suggest:
Go in Details of "Hire purchase"
The Ownership of Property is not transferred to accused, in hire purchase.
So until it is transferred, how accused is liable to pay?? Accused paid his installments, as hire, now only financier have right to sell that movable property , as he is owner and in legal possession, can take away his vehicle from road any time.
So accused is not liable for cheques paid for hire.. then purchase.
Search citation.
OK , If other partners did not authorised complainant, and certainly this authority is not a part of Partnership Deed, so he cannot have right to prosecute.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 April 2012
Partner or not is matter for trial cannot be discharged. 1997 (2) CTC 293.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 April 2012
# Shroff! The querist is a complainant and you are telling him the tacts of accused person and still saying him lucky?
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 15 April 2012
I think Delhi HC recently gave guidelines in this regard. I don't remember the instant case as of now. But can give by late evening.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 15 April 2012
I have no idea, querist is complainant:
I will remove that sentence.
Raj Saab, pl throw some light on it that I can see Querist is not accused??
Thanks.
If it mentioned, I m complaint, ok
I took it for granted the Qerist is accused.
I am still not clear about it
Will Jasvinder clarify???
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 15 April 2012
First of all the HIRE PURCHASE ACT 1972 is still not notified so the above liability is not a legal liability.
The Hire-Purchase Act, 1972
1. Short title, extent and commencement. -
ACT NO. 26 OF 1972
AN ACT TO DEFINE AND REGULATE THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PAR TIES TOHIRE-PURCHAS [8th June, 1972.]
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-third Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
(1) This Act may be called the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir1
(3) It shall come into force on such date2 as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
-------------------------------------
1. The Act has not been extended to the State of Sikkim.
2. This Act was to come into force on 1st June, 1973, vide GSR 222 (E), dated 30th April, 1973, but this notification was rescinded by GSR 288 (E) dated 31st May, 1973 and the Act was made effective from 1-9-1973 but this notification was also rescinded by GSR 402 (E) dated 30th August, 1973. This Act has not come into force as yet
jasvinder
(Querist) 15 April 2012
sorry all.i m not accused but complainant accused gave cheque on name of firm i as a partner sued accused on behalf of firm and also filed registration of firm but accused prayed that i m not authorised to sue him unless authority letter present in court i also signed on agreement with accused at time of loan questio n of hire purchase not raiased by accused
