VINOD VERMA (C E O) 28 May 2015

Advocate Sh. Trilok ji has there been any judgement from Supreme Court againt the order of Bom High Court of 2013, in the case of Kanishka Kapoor, where in vbom high Copurt had cited the the Sec. 138 is not for recovery of unaccounted money, as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

ADVOCATE TRILOK (CRIMINAL family PROPERTY topfreind@gmail.com ) 29 May 2015

First of all pl tell us you need citations in favour or against.

Court battles are faught on tactics and any citation will not apply like a computer game.

Janardan Bhat case of Apex court was specific case regarding IT and related rules.

However later SC judgments disagreed with it.

When somebody does not know the latler develoments and submits earlier case laws the courts get inlfluenced and may give desired order.. But it does mean that the same was latest.

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer) 29 May 2015

If so, then what value are courts and judgments? Are constructive criticisms of courts and judgments permitted? Are there any journals which publish such criticisms? Would it amount to contempt of court?

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 03 June 2015

The decision of the SC in the case of Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs State of Maharashtra is no longer a good law in view of the recent amendment of section 142 of N I Act relating to territorial Jurisdiction for trial of cases relating to bounced cheques .

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 03 June 2015

the amedment provides interalia as follows

Inserts Explanation III after Explanation II as “the expressions used in this section shall have the same meanings as assigned to those expressions in the Information Technology Act, 2000”
Inserts Section 142 (2) which provides that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for payment, is situated
Inserts a new Section 142 A, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of Section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
The bill is already approved by the central cabinet.

VINOD VERMA (C E O) 03 June 2015

Sir, the apex court had made clear that the Sec. 138 of N I Act, does not favour the recovery of loans by money lenders/banks, as it covers only "commercial & Mercantile transactions" to recover legally enforcible debts or other liabilities, and the rbuuttal u/s 139 is not neccessary is such, cases, please whether issue of cheue with any liability, will amount to have been issued against some consideration?

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com) 03 June 2015

You are posting your problems at various threads so it is not clear whether you are complainant or accused.

There are solutions if you are accused . And if complainant that APEX COURT has said the liability is presumed for cheque bounce.

Nitish Banka (lawyer) 05 September 2017

NI 138 Quashing

Here are the few judgements for NI 138 Quashing

On deposit of cheque amount along with interest @ 18% Pa from the date of cheque till date of payment the proceedings under 138 NI act was quashed. Dalmia Resorts Pvt Ltd V Deepak Gupta (2002)98 DLT 181
When there was no averment in the complaint about petitioners, accused nos. 3 to 5 being in charge for conduct of business of accused no.1 company for the offence under NI. 138 NI act committed with their consent or connivance.

Shailender tiweri V. Meenakshi Anhal III (2002) BC 462

Where cheque was issued by a partnership firm, but cheque in question was neither issued nor signed by the petitioner and nothing was in the complaint to show that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of business of company, complaint and summoning order against the company quashed. Anurag Mehra V. SD. Traders IV (2010) BC 211(212-214)(P&H).
Once the first complaint was dismissed in default, filing of 2nd complaint can never postpone the period of limitation or cause of action, the second complaint is liable to be quashed. If barred in time. Dilip Kumar Patra V. Jayant Kumar Mohanty III(2002) Bc 455.
The notice under provisio (b) of section 138 was not sent within 15 days of receipt of information about dishonor of cheque in bank. Nathu Singh Gangarde V jaswant singh (2002)2 MPHT 180
The accused did not function as chairman and director of accused company during the period when cheques were drawn SB Shankar V. Amman Steel Corp. II 2002 BC 351.
The complainant gave incorrect cheque numbers which according to complainant have been taken back and fresh cheques were issued. Kumar rubber industries V. Sohan Lal II 2002 BC 467 (P&H).
When accused neither signatory and nor in charge of day to day work of the firm. P Dhamodharan V. Palini Andavari Mills Ltd. (2002) 108 Comp cas 873.
When non- payment of cheque was neither wilful nor wanton on the part of accused company or its managing director but only due to bank order passed by the BIFR under section 22 A of sick industrial companies (special provisions Act) 1985 Kusum Ignots and alloys V. pennar Petersons securities Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 745.
The letter issued by the complainant bot to the drawer company of the cheque but to another concerned to make payment failing which the matter shall be referred to legal department, which cannot be contemplated under clause(b) of section 138.
The material alteration done on the cheques of the year 1995 into 1996.
When employee of a company issued cheque in his individual capacity, he alone is the drawer; so proceedings against the company are liable to be quashed Kitex garments Ltd. V Ajay Kaushik I(2002) BC 388
When accused is sleeping partner. Shakti Bhakoo V. Raj Lakshmi Millls I(2002) Bc 401(P&H)
The accused retired from the partnership 3 months prior to the issuance of the cheque. B. hambhu Kumar V. Raghvendra steels Ltd I(2002) BC 438 MAD.
Accused not named in the complaint nor averment made to cover under 142 NI act. Charanjit Singh V. DB merchant Banking Services Ltd. I(2002) BC 489
When accused is proprietorship which is not a legal entity SK Real estate V. Sk Krishnamoorthy I(2002) BC 491
The cheque is dishonored as it did not bear the signature of managing director or company seal. Managing Director Jindal Paraxair Oxygen Co. Ltd. V Assistant commissioner entry tax I(2002) BC 582.
Complaint filed for recovery of time barred debt. Satish Kumar Mor Vs, MV Rajeswara Rao. III(2007) BC 5 AP

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com) 10 September 2017

CHEQUE BOUNCE - REAL PROBLEMS.

Cheque bounce is a draconian law. People post their problems on many public sites like this but every thing can not be explained or detailed.

People try to give solutions but the same has to be implemented at local level by local advocate which is always not possible.

Our group of advocates work on All India basis and provide free legal advice on the spot with the affected person and his/ her advocate where ever we have cases going on. This procedure helps to get a workable line of action to come out of the problem.

Currently we have on going cases at following places and even en route persons can take advantage of our efforts.

Port blair – Andaman Nicobar.
Kolkutta- west Bengal.
Noida= UP.
Maharashtra- Mumbai, Nashik, Sangamner. Aurangabad.
Gujrat= surat.

We also discuss one case in this thread that what we are doing in particular case and it may be a guidance for similar cases.

PORT BLAIR :- The accused was convicted and matter went to appeal where it was remanded back to lower court. However while remanding the appellate court put certain directions hence limited scope for the accused.

We joined at the stage of final arguments in this case at lower court. We raised certain legal points regarding documents and pleadings and applied for further cross of the complainant on certain specific points.

We had the support of BOMBAY HC AND APEX COURT judgments still the discretion is with the local court. So we have gone on revision on this point alone taking support of above citations and certain observations made by the higher court while remanding the case.

Now this revision will go for at least one or two years for final decision , by the time we have another specific step ready based on law and procedure.

WE WILL POST THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE ON REGULAR BASIS.

Please contact us by email only. Whatsup contact details will be provided on request for sending copies of documents.