LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Radhey (Owner)     10 January 2011

138--N I A IS DEAD------ALMOST

Only a few years back ,  holder of cheque used to be very confident of winning the case under 138 NIA, but today I feel that it is very difficult to file and then win a 138 NIA case.

Here are my findings:-----

1)  No money lender license---no recovery of money


2)  Acct. closed/cheque stopped --No NIA 138



3) PDC/security  cheques--No 138 NIA





4)  Unaccounted money given on loan----No case


Also see these links:-------










Cheque bouncing cases are going on and on and on---so instead of rendering quick justice to its people Govt. devised these tactics to reduce 138 NIA cases.  

Great set back to Banking Growth and Economic growth and justice

and and and and and   Plz. contribute/ also correct me if I am wrong some where ......


 25 Replies

V. VASUDEVAN (LEGAL COUNSEL)     10 January 2011

The instances cited are actually health case laws to check the menace of abuse of the process the NI Act if used bona fide rather a boost to the banking and also industry. In fact these judgement paves way for evolving a reliable and speedy process for resolving genuine issues.


1 Like

Radhey (Owner)     10 January 2011

Sir, to beg Ur pardon,some instances are good for society but not all--methinks......

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     10 January 2011

Some times cheques will be misutilized.  Some are genuine and some are false cases always.

Amit Minocha (Lawyer)     10 January 2011

i think you have misconception about 138 law. some of your mentioned cases type fall under 138

Radhey (Owner)     10 January 2011

Amit Ji, all the citations, I gave are latest and well discussed at LCI---yet U can specify my mistakes,welcome.......

Radhey (Owner)     10 January 2011

 here is the important citation which declares that security cheques/PDC can not bounce




Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     11 January 2011

Good work by Mr. Radhey.  Keep up the efforts.


Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     11 January 2011

THanks Radhey.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     11 January 2011

It is very easy interpretation but still this this act is fruitful.

Radhey (Owner)     11 January 2011

Makkad Saab,



I said that this act is almost dead , I mean to compare with the present use of this act, I did not said that this act is fully dead.

Radhey (Owner)     11 January 2011

Hemant Ji, actually learnt a lot from two -three threads initiated by U on this issue.





Ur drafting would be very Good,I feel,from your writing style and mostly commonly vaqils even who know l;aws and legal procedures are bad at drafting,I feel.( with Apology from Lrnd. friends)

FUTURE LAWYER (future lawyer)     12 January 2011

Hello Mr.SKJ-Advocate, what do you about Law, The Cheque bounce cases are dead.

Do not post your false advice.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     12 January 2011

Future lawyer you have surfaced fir finding faulgs but what you are blaming, you are still a future lawyers.

NITIN CHHABRA (CHIEF)     19 February 2011


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register