TANMOY (director) 09 September 2009

cheque issued but no direct liability

hi, 'x' is the land lord. 'y' is the son of the land lord. a huge amount cheque issued in the name of 'y' for house rent. 'y' is asking the money when the cheque was dishonoured. Question- 'y' has the legal right or not to ask money in a 138 notice claiming house rent when legally and technically no enforceable liabilty exists with 'y' as 'x' is the landlord??? Supreme Court Citations required. regards

Reply Follow

4 Replies

K.C.Suresh (Advocate) 09 September 2009

Wrong. Y is eligible to get the amount due to the cheque.

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR) 09 September 2009

NI ACT 138,CERTAINLY ATTRACTS,THE INTERPRETATIONS 'HOLDER IN COURSE' ------------'-DEBT OR OTHER LIBILITY'....OF SECTION ARE VERY EXHUSTIVE MEANIG IN NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS .HENCE X CANNOT ESCAPE FRM 138,NI ACT AND CASE FILED UNDER 200CrPC.

vipul vakharia (advocate) 10 September 2009

you can not escape fom liability - section it self is clear < debt or liability <

TANMOY (director) 10 September 2009

'x' and 'y' are not fighting against each other. 'x' is landlord and 'y' is son of landlord. 'z' issued cheque in favour of 'y'. no liability in between 'z' and 'y'. liability in between 'x' and 'z'. 'z' could be prosecuted under 138 or not?