LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

138- signature differs

Page no : 2

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     13 September 2009

Sstatutory notice to every person, including the director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. Channai High Court division bench decision. Any comment?

Sachin Bhatia (Advocate)     13 September 2009

Following ruiling may be helpful in ur case.

Circumstances of Dishonour:
The circumstances under which dishonour of cheque takes place or that may contribute to the situation would be irrelevant and are required to be totally ignored.
 

In Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar the Bombay High Court held that:
"A clear reading of Section 138 leaves no doubt in our mind that the circumstances under which such a dishonour takes place are required to be totally ignored. In such case, the law only takes cognizance of the fact that the payment has not been forthcoming and it matters little that any of the manifold reasons may have caused that situation."

Five ingredients of the offence under s. 138.
The offence under Sec. 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts, which are components of the said offence;
1. Drawing of the cheque,
2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank,
3. Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank,
4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount.
5. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act.

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     13 September 2009

Sahin Thanks for rulings

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     14 September 2009

The Mumbai HC order ( as described by Adv.Sachin Bhatia) is just another "judicial intrepretation" of the law.

 

Like wise there are several hundred "judicial interpretations" of 138 (n.i.act), given by different State HC and different benches of the SC.

 

Each "judicial interpretations" in a way or the other, overrules or modifies the other judicial interpretations.

 

10 judges is equal to 10 different  "judicial interpretation". But the judicial interpretation is not the Law of the country.  The LAW are the words as passed by the legislature.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

 

 

Sachin Bhatia (Advocate)     14 September 2009

Agreed Mr. Hemant the judicial interpretation is not the Law of the country, that's why the judges are not bound with the previous judgements, ruilings of other courts.

B.N.Rajamohamed (advocate / commissioner of oaths)     14 September 2009

 

There cannot be a prosecution on that ground under sectiion 138 of the Act.


 

HARSHADKUMAR V OZA (TAX~ADVOCATE)     21 July 2012

માનનીય સાહેબશ્રી સવિનય સહ જણાવવાનું કે આરોપી કુલ ૭ ચેક (અલગ અલગ કુલ ૩ ચેક બુકમાંથી)  ખોવાઇ ગયાનો બચાવ લે છે અને સહીમાં માત્ર નાની ખામી હોવાનો ફાયદો લેવા ઇક્છે છે પરંતું ચેકમાં રકમ આંકડામાં તથા શબ્દમાં આરોપીએ પોતાના સ્વ હસ્તાંક્ષરે ભરેલ છે. તો ફરીયાદી માટે જરૂરી માહિતી જજમેન્ટ સાથે જણાવશો 

harshad_v_oza@yahoo.com

+91 9426176797

HARSHADKUMAR V OZA (TAX~ADVOCATE)     21 July 2012

 

માનનીય સાહેબશ્રી સવિનય સહ જણાવવાનું કે આરોપી કુલ ૭ ચેક (અલગ અલગ કુલ ૩ ચેક બુકમાંથી)  ખોવાઇ ગયાનો બચાવ લે છે અને સહીમાં માત્ર નાની ખામી હોવાનો ફાયદો લેવા ઇક્છે છે પરંતું ચેકમાં રકમ આંકડામાં તથા શબ્દમાં આરોપીએ પોતાના સ્વ હસ્તાંક્ષરે ભરેલ છે. તો ફરીયાદી માટે જરૂરી માહિતી જજમેન્ટ સાથે જણાવશો 

Harshad_v_oza@yahoo.com

+91 94261 76797

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query