Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rajendran Nallusamy (Advocate)     13 November 2008

Alternative to 138 cases

Hi, You are aware that courts are flooded with 138 cheque dishonour cases and even the CJI as commented on this. Do you feel that there should be an alternative mechanism to deal this issue ad remove the same from criminal jurisprudence. Please comment


Learning

 4 Replies

prabodh kumar patel (advocate)     13 November 2008

No, pendecy of huge quantity of cases is not a fit ground to do so, in my opinion.

Murali Krishna (Govt..Employee)     13 November 2008

 Definitely a way out is required. 


An important thing that is to be borne in mind is that in all these cases, the party may not be interested in punishing the defaulter. His interest mostly would be to get back his money, may be with some interest.


If that is the case, why criminal prosecution. ADR mechanisms like arbitration would be encouraged and as can be seen from the A&C Act, Award of the arbitrator can be implemented as a decree of a court. It is less cumbursome, quick and effective.  


 

Manjula d (Advocate)     14 November 2008

Dear Sir/Madam


Sec-138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,


[01]. When the cause of action arises?


[02]. What is the limiation of N.I. Act?


[03]. The cheque prsented on 17-09-08 and returned on 18-09-08, the legal notice issued on 22-09-08 through RPAD and RPAD had returned on 01-10-08 with shara "no such person in this Adderess", after that, we will served Legal notice on 23-10-08  personally. Thereafter, we will file a Cheque Bounce case on 12-11-08,  in this case, the time is barred by limitation


 

G.G.Shaikh Advocate M:9898038990 (lawyer)     14 November 2008

the cause of action is arise from the date of notice which is delivered by Complainant 's lawyer.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register