Is a cheque that is signed only useless?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
This query is : Resolved
Some one(a friend) has given me a cheque with his signature only on it.
Now I have come to know that if I would get it filled up by any one/or fill it up myself,it would be considered that he issued me a blank cheque and a blank cheque has no value in the eye of law.
Is it right?
Is there any way out for me left ?
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 08 January 2011
No, it is not right. Blank Cheque has got value. It may invite prosecution u/s 138 NI Act.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 08 January 2011
You have every right to fill the cheque with your or others handwriting and claim the value, provided if you the cheque was issued for discharging any liability.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Sirs,thanks for replying but i have doubts yet
http://lawyersclubindia.com/bare_acts/details_section.asp?mod_id=15915
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
Act No : 26
Section : Drawer, Drawee.
7.Drawer, Drawee. The maker of a bill of exchange or cheque is called the drawer "; the person thereby directed to pay is called the " drawee" . Drawee in case of need. When in the bill or in any endorsement thereon the name of any person is given in addition to the drawee to be resorted to in case of need, such person is called a " drawee in case of need ". Acceptor. After the drawee of a bill has signed his assent upon the bill, or, if there are more parts thereof than one, upon one of such parts, and delivered the same, or given notice of such signing to the holder or to some person on his behalf, he is called the " acceptor ". Acceptor for honour.1[When a bill of exchange has been noted or protested for nonacceptance or for better security,] and any person accepts it supra protest for honour of the drawer or of any one of the endorsers , such person is called an " acceptor for honour ". Payee. The person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid, is called the "payee".
This section says "drawer" not "signatory".
There is certainly a difference between "signatory" and "drawer".
If the cheque is not completely filled up by the signatory , he can certainly take a plea that he is not the drawer of the cheque.
Guest
(Expert) 08 January 2011
KINDLY NOTE THAT YOU ARE HOLDER OF THE CHEQUE WHICH IS GIVEN TO YOU FOR LEGALY ENFORCEABLE DEBT,IT IS UP TO YOU TO TRY TO RECOVER THE DUES WITH ALL AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDY.
YOU CAN FILE COMPLAINT UNDER SEC.138 OF N.I.ACT ONCE YOU DEPOSIT THE CHEQUE AFTER COMPLETING FORMALITIES AND THE SAME IS DISHONOURED.
YOU CAN FILE A CIVIL SUIT WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD BY PAYING COURT FEE STAMP AS PER YOUR CLAIM AMOUNT .
IT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE THE WAY WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTION.
LET COURT DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE .GOOD LUCK.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Nandkumar Ji , Ur answer I am sorry to say has little significance as far this question of mine is concerned.
Whatsoever u have said is quite common sense,what I asked was some thing very specific.Whether a person who has signed the cheque but not filled up the other details can be called "drawer" of the cheque ?
If this was so obvious thing and if it was understood that a "signatory" is "drawer" of the cheque then no court would have taken in notice that who filled up the cheque,why different hand writings are on the cheque ,why the "signatory" did not filled up his cheque himself,etc etc.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 09 January 2011
The questioner seems to be real intelligent and we love such persons who confront the persons giving response without giving any thought to the problem.
AND SOME BODY HAS POSTED A THREAD AGAINST SUCH REPLIES AND THERE ARE ARROGANT REPLIES TO JUSTIFY VAGUE ANSWERS.
Coming to your querry the law can not define all probabilities . Wise argument can twist any situation.
See an example - there is a statement- GOD IS NO WHERE., It can be twisted to GOD IS NOW HERE. Tell me sir what is the differance.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 January 2011
I m yet awaiting my query to be resolved by learned members of LCI.
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 09 January 2011
A blank cheque with indorsement for payment in due course is valid and filling the same would not amount to forgery unless it is misappropriated as cheque itself is a property, and if it is dishonor it would certainly attract 138. But if a blank cheque is issued though with indorsement without any bank account it would not attract 138.So your blank cheque has value in it as provided by law.
Amit Minocha
(Expert) 09 January 2011
the filling of cheque is important between the payee and the drawer and for non else as the dispute is between both of them only. Either guilty or acquittal. But under the law if you give a blank cheque you authorise the payee to fill and complete the rest.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 January 2011
Amit Ji, thnx that U r replying but your answer did not make things clear to me.
Do U mean to say that if the cheque is filled up by some one who is neither drawer or drawee, it is null and void?
And U say that----But under the law if you give a blank cheque you authorise the payee to fill and complete the rest.
Do mean to say that if the drawee fills up a cheque then there is no legal issue--if it is so much understood ---why in the court of law this is made an issue that who filled up the cheque?
I am yet not clear...
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 09 January 2011
The drawer of the cheque is by whom the cheque is signed. It does not matter who fills in the cheques value and date etc.
The drawer and the signatory are one and the same. There may be two different persons only in the case of the company. The drawer of the cheque will be X company, authorized signatory is Y. Z who is filling the blanks is not a drawer.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 January 2011
Aruangiri Ji,so may I conclude that issue raised in the Courts that signatory did not filled up the cheque is worthless?
Then how can someone claim in the Court that he gave blank cheque to someone, if the issue of blank cheque or filled up cheque some one else than the signatory, is immaterial?
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 09 January 2011
the signd cheque is the property and also the faith of yr friend which he given to u.
it is from begin to last not for u. if u use i.e.-breach of trust in criminal.
(if all admissible by u)\
othere wise definitly it can be a case of 138n.i.act.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 January 2011
sarvesh sir, I forgot to mention that that signed cheque was given to me by my friend when he took a hand loan from me so how can it be his property while he is not ready to pay back my money?
Now as you have come to know more facts of my case please suggest whether I can present this cheque in the court and ask for the payment from my friend or not--under NIA 138 or Order 37?
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 10 January 2011
Even in case of signed blank cheque which was later filled in by the holder in due course, it can be presumed that drawer and the signatory is one and same. There are lot many presumptions under NI Act. If you are holding the cheque for valid consideration, you are legally entitled in this present case to take action under NI Act asper the procedure. However, as Mr.Shasikumar expert told above, as law can not take all probabilities, it all depends how these are twisted by the opposite party and his advocate. All the best for you.
