Legally enforceable debt
pashi
(Querist) 17 August 2013
This query is : Resolved
Thank you all for sending your valuable opinions.
As we know,that, posessing undeclared or undisclosed or unaccounted money is an offence.
If that unaccounted money is lent as loan, does the transaction come under the purview of " LEGALLY ENROCEABLE DEBT UNDER SECTION 138 of N.I ACT" ?
Guest
(Expert) 17 August 2013
Don't try to escape from your liability. If you received the money, that is a legally enforceable debt for all purposes. Unaccounted money is not your problem. That is the problem of the money lender and that aspect is to be seen by the IT department, mot the debtor. If debt money is unacountable, you as debtor cannot expect that the creditor should allow you to forfeit his money or you assume the power of a taxman.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 18 August 2013
academic query.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 18 August 2013
moreover, CA can give u right reply.
Guest
(Expert) 18 August 2013
Since your case pertains to cheque dishonour, you cannot be absolved of your liability by setting aside action under sec.138 irrespective of whether the money borrowed by you was accountd for or kept unaccounted by the lender.
Your case, as stated in your queries at the following links, cannot be clubed with tax laws just to misdirect the justice to make a profitable venture for the borrower to find free funding for his own business:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Money-lending-413521.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Chq-bounce-414546.asp
Guest
(Expert) 18 August 2013
Thanks Prabhakar ji.
Probably the querist does not want to understand and realise that an unaccounted money can be siezed by the Government, but not the borrower, as free fund for his business and profiteering purposes.
He just needs to realise that his liability of debt cannot be extinguished if he has actually borrowed money, even if the lender's money is termed as unaccounted by the Government. If he has taken a loan, that is his unquestionable liability as a legally enforeable debt
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 August 2013
agree with dhingraji
Guest
(Expert) 18 August 2013
Jaggarao ji,
May the querist be able to get reply that may suit to his thinking, but he should not expect the judges to be bound to act according to his sweet will by ignoring the question of law in connection with his cheque dishonour case with particular reference to his actual debt position.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 August 2013
where is your earlier query context is not clear on this thread
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 18 August 2013
nothing more to add.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 18 August 2013
The author has not disclosed much facts necessitating our intervention rather we are extending the query by giving replies on assumptions and presumption especially when the author is silent and has not responded either side.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 19 August 2013
YES MR RAJ KUMAR MAKKAD.
The cheque law is draconian and law itself presumes guilt. So those trapped try to find disparate defense.
1) When accused claims the money was un accounted he / she has admitted money was received and cheque was given and it is bounced for want of funds.
So by this defense the accused has put the head under hammer.
It is sufficient for conviction.
2 ) it does not mean there is no other route to come out.
3) It is just not possible even to make a perfect fictitious complaint since not easy to comply with basic requirements. That is why Govt is taking steps to withdraw this law.
4) How ever due to guilt complex and such defenses like illegal money, blank cheque, security cheque the opportunity for other viable defense is lost.
Take advice of an advocate who has handled such matters and you may get viable and legal defense other than this concept of black money.
