LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

time barred debt and N I act

Page no : 2

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     18 June 2012

How much banking industry should pay to me for this idea...ha..ha...:).  Cash receipt is a valid AOD.  The borrower need not sign it anyone can deposit cash at the counter on behalf of borrower. 

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     19 June 2012

Banks are not fools, they have battery of lawyers whom they pay money, barring few exceptions, their loans will not get into such hurdles called time barred. The legal recovery cause, although civil suit, is quite aggressive nowadays and even courts are not sympathetic towards cheats.

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com)     19 June 2012

Mr Chandrashekhar you are right many NBFC and bakns are acutally doing it.

pankaj shekhawat (director)     17 May 2014

My arguments with judgments is that "TIME BARRED" (recovery of money) is civil matter and its different from criminal proceeding u/s 138, for clearing my point of view some Para of supreme court & Karnataka high court judgments as below-    

"This is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. If for example, the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability payable under a wagering contract, it could have been said that that debt or liability is not legally enforceable as it is a claim, which is prohibited under law. This case is not a case of that type. But we are certain that at this stage of the proceedings, to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent was in respect of a debt or liability, which was not legally enforceable, was clearly illegal and erroneous".-- Supreme Court- A.V. Murthy vs B.S. Nagabasavanna on 8 Feb. 2002.

"A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc. Section 138 of the NI Act is a penal provision the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on proof of the guilt in a duly conducted criminal proceedings. Once the offence under Section 138 is completed the prosecution proceedings can be initiated not for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque but for bringing the offender to the penal liability"-- Supreme Court-M/S. Bsi Ltd. & Anr vs Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 15 February, 2000.

 "Therefore, in the present case on hand, notwithstanding that the appellate Court has found that the amount due from the respondent was a time barred debt, which could not be recovered by recourse to filing a civil suit for recovery of such money. The cheque issued in discharge of such a debt was not a legally enforceable instrument, cannot be accepted. The logic that nothing prevents a man from repaying a time barred debt, voluntarily, and in the place of legal tender, if the very man issues a cheque in due repayment of such a time barred debt, it is a promise made to discharge such a debt by virtue of issuance of the cheque. Therefore, the cheque not being disputed as having been issued by the respondent is a voluntary payment made, of a time barred debt. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was not enforceable and if the cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, it is clearly an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The appellant having complied with all other formalities in brining the complaint, the same could not have been rejected on the ground that the payment was in respect of a time barred debt. The authoritative opinions expressed herein above would support this view."-Karnataka High Court-       Shri Sangameshwar Chits Pvt Ltd vs Sri.G R Marigoudar on 25 September, 2013.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register