LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Case laws on dishonour of cheques

Page no : 2

suraj kumar singh (Advocacy)     22 April 2009

Dear Ram Pal.... thanks a lot for these case laws.... i have a query that ....is there any case law in your knowledge in which the case Harman Electronics have been over ruled....or any case law after harman Electronics about teritorial jrisdiction in 138 of NIA.... required urgently Regards, Suraj Kumar Singh 9810329829

Bhaskaran Advocate (Lawyer)     08 June 2009

Thanks, Rampal.

Rahul Gupta (Member)     18 September 2009

You have provide the case as given below:

3. Incomplete Signature : Dishnour of cheque because of incomplete signature on cheque of drawer. Held: did not attract sec. 138 - (2002 (7) SCC 531).

I have searched it using Google Search. I am in need of such a case which is mentioned above as already described by you.


Could you please provide me the complete case.

I shall be very thankful to you.

Rahul Gupta (Member)     18 September 2009

You have provide the case as given below:

3. Incomplete Signature : Dishnour of cheque because of incomplete signature on cheque of drawer. Held: did not attract sec. 138 - (2002 (7) SCC 531).

I have searched it using Google Search. I am in need of such a case which is mentioned above as already described by you.

 You may contact me at bhawaniinvestments@gmail.com or rahulg1961@gmail.com

Could you please provide me the complete case.

I shall be very thankful to you.

S. Fernandes (Entreprenure)     06 October 2009

This is very valuable information you have compiled, thanks so much. However I note that in item 14 - quote:

14. Accused refused to receive notice : Where accused have refused to receive notice, even then complaint to be filed after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice (1997 (3) crimes 445). In case of refusal to receive the notice, it amounts to acceptance of notice and date of refusal to receive such notice shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice. In such case the period of fifteen days has to be computed from the date of refusal (AIR 1996 SC 330; AIR 1989 SC 630)


The ammendments allow 30 days for filling of complaint after refusal/ accectance, i.e. receipt date on A/D card. whereas in the above sitation it is mentioned filling must be 15 days from refusal.??

Can you please clearify.


Mohit Gupta (lawyer)     10 October 2009

dear friend,

i submit sm important case rules regarding 138 NIact which helps u to solve the metters of this act these are as follows:

Opinion of Handwriting Expert- Denial of Signature on Chq. By accused- Best witness would be Concerned bank manager since cheques was dishounoured for insufficient funds and signature on cheque was disputed as forged one--- Application for referring cheque for opinion fo handwriting expert. Dismissed.
b.      2007(1)DCR 13
Gujarat High Court
Madhu Bhai GandaBhai Patel V/s Joitara m   patel & anrs.
For hand writing expert opinion
  1. Supreme court case in year 2006 about NIA 138, that liabilities on accused should
be proved by the prosecution or cheque holder.
  1. 2007 WLC SC
2008 WLC SC
Complaint u/s 138 – by unregistered partnership firm --- not prohibited u/s 69(2)of partnership act 1932.
  1. (a) kamlaksh V/s S. G. maykar laxman
            Cr. Application no.3879/07
                  Bombay high court.
      (b) C. Antony V/s K. G. Raghwan nayar
                  2003(1) scc 1
Chq issue for time barred liability:-accuital.
  1. Manivennam & ors V/s P.R.aadikeswan
Madras High court
Criminal Original Application no.2326/07
u/s 420.406,415 IPC etc. after lodging Fir in these said sections, accused issued a chq to complainant: but said chq was dishonored: Held:--that no barred on lodging another fresh complaint U/s 138 NIAct against the accused persons during the pendency of First complain regarding IPC sections against the accused persons according the Sec 218 Crpc.
  1. Prosecution of Directors in NI Act:-N.K wahi v/s Shekhar singh & ors.
WLC 2008(1) Cri 201 SC
Held:- prosecution of Directors:-no specific averments in complaint that accused directors were in responsible for conduct of business of Company: Proceedings against accused Directors reightly quashed by the High Court.
Cases reffred :- 2005(2)WLC(sc)Cri 490
                        2007(1)WLC(sc)Cri 360
                        2007(2)WLC(sc)Cri 71(A)July 07
      13. Power Of Attorney Holder:- sentity in the NiAct
1.2005 CriLJ 112 sc
Permission to conduct- Prosecution- Death of a original complainant during trial:- Application to Continue prosecution filed by POA holders of Heirs of Comlainant – Not Permissible
2. 2005CriJ 3572 SC
3. AIR 2002 SC 182
4. 2000(1) SCC 397
5. 2004 AIR SCW 7064
AIR 2005 SC 439 (REL. ON)
AIR2002 SC 182
Burden of Proof:-
      1.P. Jayaraj V/s R saraja(Mad)
2007 (1)DCR 562
Held:- on complainant
2. 2002(1) scc 234 –
    burden of proof always on accused.
3.Hiten Sagar V/s IMC Ltd.
   2001 CriLJ 1311
   Held:- koi dastawej taiyyar kiye bina yadi kisi anya ke dayitav ki purti hetu koi chq      jari kiya jata h tho 138 NiAct lagu nai hota
Case ref:- Nand Kishore Mahesh V/s Sudhir Transport ltd.
Criminal Application no.3661/07
Bombay HighCourt
Blank Cheque/Body Writing :-
1.      2002(7) scc 150( P.K. Manmadan Kartha v/s sagar rai) Body writing
2.      Mastansingh Pannu V/S Harjinder Singh
2007(1) RLW 239
Dishonour of Cheques—Blank Cheque Issued- Accused had admitted his signatures on cheques. It would be presumed that cheques was drawn for consideration.
3.      2007(1)DCR 567
Issue for Security:-Complaint Quashed
       Adducing Wittnessess:-
1.      Mrs. Kalyani Bhaskar V/s Mrs. M S Sampoornam
2007(1) DCR 168
   Demand Notice
1.Laxmandas V/S Amar Rochwani
AIR 2007 (DOC) 270 (MP)
Cheques Dishonour--- Demand notice- presumption as to service of –when can be drawn.
2.1998(6) SCC 514
Once notice has been issued and payment no received in said period payee has to avoid the very cause of action arising there upon and file the complaint Dishonour of Chq. On each are presenhtaion does not give rese to a fresh cause of action.
Service of notice:---
1.      (2000) 1 Scc 397
2.      2005(1) DCR 58. for notice served on incorrect address.
3.      AIR 1978 J&K 31
4.      2005 Cri.L.J 2572
5.      Air 1968 SC1390
6.      1998 Cri.L.J 1690
7.      2007(1) DCR 333


ashwini jagadi (legal officer)     01 December 2009

Dear members

pls give information on this point.-If the company is in the business of lending money and accepting deposits, is it still exempted from Money Lenders Act?

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     01 December 2009

IF a co. is doing   "BUSINESS" of  "lending" money  and/or  "deposits"


1. It has to compulsorily register under the state Money Lenders Act.


2. It has to mandatorily register under the RBI Act, as well, subject to conditions, as applicable to NBFC's.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal




ashwini jagadi (legal officer)     01 December 2009

Dear sir

Thanks for your information

have a great day

with regards


Legal officer


NEELESH (CA)     15 December 2010

dear sir

kindly let me know the legal remedy that is available for the cheque which has not been issued to the complainant and the account on which the cheuqe was returned dishonured was closed last 10 years back. the cheque was never issued to the complainant for any discharge of debt. the cheque was stolen even the writing on the cheque and the the signatures do not match. and the complainant is unable to exhibit any documents demanded. only cheque and affidavit has been given to the court on what ground we can proceed further. kindly let me know as soon as possible.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     16 December 2010

cases are decided on pleadings and evidence so unless your pleadings match with citations than only the citations will help. If you are not able to contradict the story in cross no citation can help you.

Simple example starts from issue of notice. I have seen most of the advocates admit it against their client and further work of other side becomes easy.

Even notice has lot of mistakes and case can not move on even  if you only concentrate on this alone.

How , the opponent has to prove service of notice and same notice to accused which he has produced. If the accused do not admit it is a herculian task for the complainant to prove it.

ashwini jagadi (legal officer)     18 December 2010

Very good information  thanks a lot

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register