DEAR MR. QUERIST
THE FIRST POINT TO BE NOTED IN THIS IS " DEBT OR OTHER LIABILITY MEANS LEGALLY VALID OR OTHER LIABILITY" . IN THIS CASE LET US TAKE THAT THE PERSON HAD TAKEN THE LOAN IN THE YEAR 2006 . THE DOCUMENT HE HAD EXECUTED IS VALID ONLY FOR 27 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DOCUMENT . BUT THE TERM GETS EXTENDED WHEN THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY HIM IS HONORED . LET US ASSUME THAT HE HAD HONORED 18 CHEQUES . THE TERM GETS EXTENDED BY 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST CHEQUE HONORED BY HIM . SO TOTALLY 45 MONTHS THE DOCUMENT IS VALID. ( 1 ) AFTER EXPIRY OF 45 MONTHS , HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY PAYMENT EVEN LESSER AMOUNT TO THE LOAN ( 2 ) AND HE / SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND GIVEN A LETTER AFTER THIS 45 MONTHS .( 3 ) HE / SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH HE HAD ISSUED THE CHEQUE .( 4 ) NOW THERE IS A RULE THAT IF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER DOES NOT OPERATE THE ACCOUNT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR , THEN THE BANK CAN CLOSE THE ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION TO HIM .SO THAT HE MUST OPERATE THE ACCOUNT IN SUCH A WAY AND MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM BALANCE AND THE ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT GO AS " INOPERATIVE ACCOUNT " .( 5 ) HE SHOULD NOT GIVE " STOP PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANY OF THE CHEQUES . ( 6 ) HE / SHE SHOULD NOT ATTEND ANY " CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS OR ANY LOK ADALAT " IN THIS MATTER .
IN SUCH A CASE THE CHEQUE ISSUED IS NOT LEGALLY VALID AFTER EXPIRY OF 45 MONTHS . THE DOCUMENT SIGNED IS NOT LEGALLY VALID AFTER EXPIRY OF 45 MONTHS . SO FOR THE DEBT THE BANK DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGALLY VALID DOCUMENT AFTER 45 MONTHS TO FILE A CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ON THE PERSON . THIS SECTION IS VALID ONLY IN THE CASE OF A LEGALLY VALID DEBT OR LIABILITY.
THE NEXT MATTER IS " THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE " . THE CHEQUE IS ONLY SIGNED BY THE PERSON BUT IT IS BLANK . THE NAME OF THE PAYEE IS NOT MENTIONED , THE AMOUNT OF THE CHEQUE IS NOT MENTIONED , THE DATE OF THE CHEQUE IS NOT MENTIONED . " ALL THESE WERE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY BUT NOT BY THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE " . IN ONE OF THE CASES THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE ACCEPTS THAT HE HAD DRAWN THE CHEQUE FOR THAT AMOUNT BUT PAYABLE ONLY AFTER 3 YEARS LATER FOR TAKING FULL CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS AND THE PAYEE ALSO AGREES THIS AND HAD DEPOSITED THE CHEQUE AFTER 4 YEARS AND WHEN IT WAS RETURNED FILED A CHEQUE RETURN CASE . THE HIGH COURT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEBT IS NOT LEGALLY VALID AND " QUASHED " THE CASE . IN ANOTHER CASE THE PERSON WHO ISSUED THE CHEQUE HAD FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE TO SEND THE CHEQUE TO A GOVERNMENT LABORATORY IN HYDERABAD TO FIND OUT " THE AGE OF THE INK ". HE HAS COME TO KNOW OF THIS LABORATORY FROM A WEBSITE . " I HAVE COME TO KNOW OF SUCH A LABORATORY FROM THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ". THE MAGISTRATE REFUSED HIS REQUEST ON THE GROUND THAT DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SENT OUT OF THE COURT . I ALSO CAME ACROSS THE SAME SITUATION WHEN I APPLIED FOR THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2002 , THE CASE WHICH I HAVE DETAILED ALREADY IN THIS FORUM REGARDING " PF AND GRATUITY " MATTER . THE PRESIDING OFFICER REFUSED TO GIVE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER SINCE IT IS A BIG ONE AND THEY DON'T HAVE A XEROX MACHINE AND HE CANNOT ALLOW THE DOCUMENT TO GO OUT .I TOLD HIM TO SEND A OFFICER WITH THE REGISTER JUST DOWNSTAIRS AND TAKE A COPY . THE CASE IS OVER, WHY SHOULD I BEG TO HIM . FINALLY I GOT A COPY . NOW IN THE CHEQUE RETURN CASE MENTIONED ABOVE , AFTER SOMETIME HE FILED A PETITION AGAIN AND THIS TIME HE GOT THE PETITION " DISMISSED " WHICH HE WANTED . HE APPLIED FOR THE ORDER COPY AND FILED A PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT THE REQUEST BEING THE SAME . THE HIGH COURT STAYED THE CASE AND CALLED FOR THE BUNDLE AND " SENT IT FOR EXAMINATION TO THAT GOVERNMENT LABORATORY TO DETERMINE THE AGE OF THE INK AND FURTHERMORE THE HANDWRITING ON THE CHEQUE " . THE " SIGNATURE " WAS SOME FIVE YEARS BEFORE AND " ALL THE WRITINGS OF RECENT DATE ". WHAT BANKS DO IS THEY GET THE CHEQUES BLANK AND PRESENT IT ONE BY ONE BY FILLING UP EVERY COLUMN. SO IN THIS CASE " THE DRAWER HAD NOT DRAWN THE CHEQUE FAVOURING THE PAYEE " FOR A LEGALLY VALID DEBT BECAUSE THE SIGNATURE CONFIRMS THAT IT IS 5 YEARS OLD.
SO THE SECOND REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHEQUE MUST HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE DRAWER FAVORING THE PAYEE FOR A LEGALLY VALID DEBT IS NOT FULFILLED . THE CASE WAS " QUASHED BY THE HIGH COURT " .THERE ARE LOT OF SUPREME COURT CASES REFERRED IN SUCH CASES . THE ONLY THING THE PERSON WHO HAS ISSUED CHEQUES IN SUCH A MANNER MUST DO IS TO APPROACH A LAWYER AND PAY HIS FEES AND THE PERSON NEED NOT PAY ANYTHING TO THE BANK . LET THE MONEY GO TO AN ADVOCATE. THE PERSON WOULD HAVE PAID MORE THAN WHAT HE HAD OBTAINED FROM THE BANK . EVEN IF HE PAYS THE AMOUNT DEMANDED BY THE BANK , HE WILL GET A LETTER THAT HIS LOAN IS CLOSED , BUT AFTER 4 OR 5 YEARS THE BANK WILL APPROACH HIM. THE BORROWER SHOULD NOT CHANGE HIS MOBILE NUMBER GIVEN TO THE BANK AT THE TIME HE AVAILED THE LOAN IN ORDER TO GET INPUTS FROM THE BANK AFTER 4 OR 5 YEARS . I AM MAINTAINING A POSTPAID MOBILE NUMBER FOR 10 YEARS FROM 2003 ONLY FOR THIS AND PAYING ABOUT RS.600/- PER MONTH BECAUSE THE PULSE IS 15 SECONDS AND NOW THE CALL RATE HAD COME DOWN TO 30 PS/ MINUTE . IN ADDITION I WILL GET A DISCOUNT OF RS. 400/- ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CALL CHARGES MADE . NOW THIS PLAN IS NOT AVAILABLE . ONE MORE MOBILE NUMBER IS 8 YEARS OLD AND THE THIRD ONE 5 YEARS OLD . BESIDES I AM HAVING A HIGH SPEED BSNL INTERNET OF 4 MBPS FOR 6 GB PER MONTH - JOSEPH WILFRED - 04/11/2013 AT 21:00 HRS.
