LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Lalit Sharma (NA)     14 December 2014

Need some clarification about ni act

Hi,

 

I would to clarify that whether a person can be prosecuted under Sec. 138 NI act on bounce of "security cheque" in a personal loan matter.

 

I have read and discussed that SC has new judgement about it.  Kindly share your expert advise.

 

Regards,

Lalit Sharma



 9 Replies

dr g balakrishnan (advocate/counsel supreme court)     14 December 2014

SC was talking about companies, that said under NI Act you have to make the company as the party as company is a legal person under company Law.

 

otherwise what is stated in NI Act is still valid read sec 138 r/w 142!

dr g balakrishnan (advocate/counsel supreme court)     14 December 2014

only in civil cases there can be court fees not in criminal cases as sec 138 r/w 142 isfalling under law of crimes. any criminal matter the prosecutor is the State when one files a criminal matter as that criminal complaint is some kind of FIR 

K.K.Ganguly (Advocate)     14 December 2014

You are right. As per recent Apex court judgment, cheques, covering a loan amount taken,  handedover towards security of the said loan do not come under the purview of Section 138 of N.I. Act, if those cheques are dishonoured.

Simran Kaur (Advocate/Legal Consultant @simrank211@gmail.com)     14 December 2014

Very sound advice given by the learned advocates. Second their opinions.

Advocate Ravinder (Advocate/Attorney)     14 December 2014

I Agree with K.K.Ganguly. Can anybody share the SC Judgement.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     17 December 2014

Dear Author can you mention the case number of the reported judgement you said to have discussed on the subject query (?)

Kundan Kr. Singh (Advocate)     31 January 2015

 Dishonour of post dated cheques is not an offence under N I Act.

SLP(Crl.No.) 9752/2010 in Criminal appeal no.830/2014

M/s Indus Airways pvt.ltd vs M/s Magnum Aviation Pvt.ltd.

I am requesting all my learned Friends,PLs read and discuss the issues.

DAULAT DILBAUG (Problems related to money marriage matters.-dostnaye@gmail.com)     31 January 2015

WHEN YOU READ CASE LAWS THAN UNLESS YOU KEEP YOURSELVES UPDATED THAN IT DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD0

 

ALL CASES OF POST DATED CHEQUES, BLANK CHEQUES  AND EVEN STOLEN CHEQUES HAVE BEEN OVER RULED.

FROM  A RECENT JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT.

The  judgment  clearly  held  that  the presumption  under  Section  139  of  the  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, includes the presumption of  the  existence  at  a  legally  enforceable  debt  or liability.    That  presumption  is  required  to  be honoured,  and  if  it  is  not  so  done,  the  entire basis  of  making  these  provisions  will  be  lost.

 

 

three-Judge Bench of SUPREME COURT has approved the above decision and held that failure of the drawer of the cheque to put up a probable defence for rebutting the presumption that arises under Section 139  would justify conviction even when the appellant drawer may have alleged that the cheque in question had been lost and was being misused by the  complainant.

 

New Delhi;

November 27, 2012

 

dr g balakrishnan (advocate/counsel supreme court)     31 January 2015

only debt cheques if bounced attracts sec 138 of NI Act.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query