Legal Proceddings U/s.138 of NI ACT.
sudhakar s. yeradkar
(Querist) 19 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
'A' sold material to B, B sold same materail to 'C'.
C released payment direct infavour of A.
There is no documentation between A & C.
Chque issued by C is dishonored. What is the procedure for filling complaint u/s.138 of NI Act against third party?
Is the complaint/case is maintainable u/s.138.
Please give us your expert advise.
Rgds,
Sudhakar Yeradkar.
M.Sheik Mohammed Ali
(Expert) 19 May 2011
as per law evidence is must same time its primary evidence or corroboration evidence is must as per your query, only having bounced cheque, A and C no transaction directly then how can you file with out transaction filing a case, if you can false case may file against C
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 19 May 2011
There is no privity of contract between A and C. So, there is no case against C.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 19 May 2011
Yes. Am agree with mr.sheik. A can file a false against c. Thats it.. But what a question here that a sold the material to b, b sold the same to c, c paid to a. No logic in your query..
Guest
(Expert) 19 May 2011
Unless any liability against C is proved by A, no case becomes maintainable.
Guest
(Expert) 19 May 2011
A can however claim for goods supplied to B and alternatively B can claim payment from C, Case under Sec 138 would fail.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 20 May 2011
There may be mutual agreement between A,B and C about payment of money to A. If B is willing to depose that C agreed to pay price of goods to A and that the cheque was issued to A as per that agreement, then a case u/s 138 would be maintenable.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 20 May 2011
Though there is no written agreement between A and C, since the goods are changed hands, there must be some correspondence to prove the consideration and instruction of B to C to pass on the sale consideration to A. This can be the evidence to make case under Section 138 of NI Act. If there is written evidence that C agreed to pass on the sale consideration as per the instructions of B, a case can be made.
PJANARDHANA REDDY
(Expert) 20 May 2011
THE CHEQUE IS A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, ANY HOLDER IN DUE COURSE CAN PRESENT FOR PAYMENT, BUT THE LEGALLY ENFORCEABILITY MUST BE ESTABLISHED(IT MUST NOT ATTRACT NI ACT 58), THE EVIDENCES FOR THE ACCUSED TO REBUTTAL THE CASE.
THIS IS THE BALANCED ACT FOR COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED AFTER AMENDMENT IN 2002 .
AS PER LATEST SC CITATIONS THE 138 BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO PUNISH, IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWS THE LAW.
IF ANY ONE TRY TO JUMP THE LAW THEY NEVER COME TO TRAIL. IN MY ONE CASE LAST 7 YEARS 3 ACCUSED ARE DECLARED ABSCONDING.( THEY LIVE IN THE CENTRE OF CITY, 1KM FROM PS )
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 20 May 2011
If A can prove that his good has been sold to C through B, he can sue against C.
Guest
(Expert) 20 May 2011
Dear Vijayan,
Any business transaction of B with C cannot be treated as transaction of A. In fact it seems B tried to adopt a shortcut to avoid recording credit entries of C in to his books and on the other hand to avoid debit entry against A in his books for the purpose of showing some loss or bad debt against C..
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 21 May 2011
thanks vijaian.
A can file complaint against Cast he is having cheque for consideration. he is to prove that his money is due with B and C is debtor of B. at the same time A can file a civil suit against B. Both are maintainable at the same.time. There is always a presumption that if a cheque is given, it is for consideration.
prashant pundhir
(Expert) 21 May 2011
Dear,
Why do not you give the complaint of 420i.p.c. against B and C both in place of 138 n.i. act ?It will be maintainable and more effective to .
If you are agree with me,the language of the complaint I can tell you .
Guest
(Expert) 21 May 2011
Dear Sudhakar,
Prashan't proposed line of action seems to get effective in your case.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 19 May 2011
