!38 n.i. act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 26 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
I have 3 companies say A, B & C based at belgaum (karnataka) we used to buy tyres for our commerial vehicles from a dealer in pune (maharastra)as payment was delayed the dealer held one vehicle at pune so i went to meet him for release of the vehicle,so he called a notary to his office we signed a agreement and i issued cheques for rs. 5.10 Lac the agreement was notarised then and there also one ot his staff signed as witness.He has verbal told me that he will not deposit the cheques for next 90 days but instead deposited the same next day as they returned from bank he has served me a notice.The cheques and agreement were signed in the name of company C but actually the tyres were taken by vehicles of company A&B even the invoices generated in name of a A&B with vehicle no,s mentioned belong to company A&B, now do i have any ground to defend or what should i do as i need time for payment but thr dealer is refusing and saying he will take double the cheque amount from the court. please advise. Thank you.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 26 October 2011
Cheques of company
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 October 2011
what were the terms and conditions of agreement ? does agreement mention cheques not to be deposited?
consult a local lawyer
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 26 October 2011
Unless the agreement is seen, nothing can be said about the same.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 26 October 2011
In the it said that the cheqes are issued against tyres supplied if the cheqes bounce the dealer shall have right to file suit under section 138
Guest
(Expert) 27 October 2011
First of all you should not have given the current cheques. If the dealer agreed for 90 days, you could have post dated the cheques by about three months.
Now, it is better to defend the case justifying that the company C did not have any liability towards the dealer and the party forcibly got the agreement signed at his own premises and got the cheques drawn and signed by thrusting pressure on the signatory when visited.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 October 2011
Even his act to withheld your vehicle was unauthorized and you could have complained with police which you did not.
You entered into agreement,what contents of agreement are is not disclosed by you.Was liability of A & B TRANSFERRED to C is also not told??.You could have complained against all this on the very date,but you failed.In addition you issued current date cheques instead of 90 days,YOU SAY.Circumstances speak you have been defaulting payments because such situations
does not arise between business parties so early.
Any way If your this version of story is proved that:....
"The cheques and agreement were signed in the name of company C but actually the tyres were taken by vehicles of company A&B even the invoices generated in name of a A&B with vehicle no,s mentioned belong to company A&B, " THEN A COMPETENT LAWYER CAN
DEFEND YOU FROM PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION.
HENCE I ADVISE YOU TO KEEP IN TOUCH OF A LAWYER COMPETENT TO DEAL THESE MATTERS OF 138 NI ACT.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 27 October 2011
Thank you all for the perfect advise.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 26 October 2011
