138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (AS AMENDED THEREOF)
DECESION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MODI CEMENTS LIMITED vs KUNCHIL KUMAR NANDI (1998 2 JT SC 198) CLEARLY HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUE - EVEN IF NOTICE IS ISSUED STOPPING PAYMENT BEFORE THE PAYEE DEPOSITED THE CHEQUE IN HIS BANK, OFFENSE IS COMPLETE (ELECTRONICS AND SIDDHARTHAN CASES OVERRULED).
CAN THE ABOVE SAID LAW BE QUOTED AGAINST THE ACCUSED, WHERE HE TAKES THE PLEA OF HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT.
CAN THE (ACCUSED) ESCAPE THE CLUTHES OF LAW U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 ON THE PRETEXT OF HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT ? IS YES, THEN HOW WILL THE UNDERMENTIONED QUESTION BE ANSWERED ?
1) IN CASE THEIR WAS SUFFICIENT PAYMENT LYING WITH THE BANK, THEN WHY THE SAID PERSON DECLINED TO MAKE A PAYMENT ?
2)DOES THE LAW EMBOIDED IN MODI CEMENTS LIMITED BE USED AGAINST THE IMPUNGED DEFENSE OF SUCH ACCUSED PERSONS ?
3)DOES THE JUDGEMENT OF MODI CEMENTS LIMITED PROPAGTE A STRONG PRINCIPLE THAT :- ONCE A NOTICE IS ISSUED WITH STANDING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BANK TO STOP PAYMENT OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 138 IS COMPLETE AND THEIR IS NO NEED OF INSPECTING WHETHER THEIR WAS SUFFICIENT OF INSUFFICENT BALANCE LYING IN THE ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED.?
