Sentenced in security cheque

In the above case the grounds were not very strong in appeal. Hence it had been dismissed..Should have been dealt by a shrewd lawyer.Court should not be blamed for this.

Yes firstly the party should not have gone directly to HC when options are there to first go to Sessions court.

More ever only fresh people give advice of security cheque defense it should never be taken. It is plain suicide.,Since in this case also the court says once you accept it is your cheque so liability is there.

So all other doors to fight on liability or actual giving of cheque are closed.

This case and similar other cases can still be won at trial court level by proper effective defense even now.

This order is bad in law. When Hon HC says that security cheque, does not make out S.138, then hon HC cannot directly give any breaching ruling, the order of hon SC is binding on all the courts as per constitution.

It is surprising that Hon HC for the jurisdiction followed the SC order with detailed argument of its own (not required), but for security cheque it did not follow the SC order, possibly not brought to the kind attn of Hon HC.

The HC could have simply said that the said cheque being a secuirty cheque is a matter of trial, let the applicant prove at the trial. But it could not have violated SC ruling over security cheque the way it has done, by equating the security with a cheque issued for liability. Yes, it is true that security aspect is not forcefully taken up by applicant petitioner.

In my humble opinion cheques issued for loan or to financial companies should not come under the S.138, simply because they are required to keep the mortgage collateral propert.

Then What is the purpose of issuing that cheque please

Pl read my blog Ni138.blogspot.in to know more about purpose of cheque.

From the order it is not clear how the said cheque is the security cheque, the hon HC did not elaborate on the contention of the accused that how the said cheque is the security cheque, my only point is that the Hon SC should not have given a breaching with SC opinion, it could have just sent the case to trial court after dismissing the petition stating that it is the matter for trial court to decide.

Another interesting point which comes out of reading this order is : How accused could have issued a cheque of the full amount of Rs. 20 Lacs, when the agreed payment was to take place through EMI, the security cheque could have been lawfully enforced only on expiry of entire EMI period. Quite fishy.

It will be things interesting for debate but not practical and legally acceptable. The cheque issued  as security would be presented for defaulted amount along with interest applicable for the defaulted period and justifiable from the side of to whom it had been issued.Any discrepancy in the amount should have been objected in the counter.Once you had issued Cheque whether as EMI or Security you would be liable to pay if particular you could request to get back the other cheques lying with them any and also note the cheques issued could be presented in  more than five different cities apart from place of issuance.These are the things practically happening which are legally not objectable. All the above comments of above will not fetch any legal solution and would not be useful to any one. unless he him self argue the same in court and make it acceptable.