santoshSHAH (properitor) 03 February 2010

IS 138 APPLICABLE TO ME

Respected Sir

We are having SSI unit in Waluj Area, We were Purchasing Chemicals from Party in Mumbai

The case History in Brief

1 We have iSSUED Cheques to Party Rs 50000/eACH * 04 NOS as Security Amount on 15/5/2006

2 At the time of Delivering the Cheque We have not Mention the Date since it was to be used in Future Business

3 The Name Of Party was incorrect

4 We have written request Letter ,not to be deposit,since it was as Securty

5Since the business was not developed we gave instruction to bank for STOP PAYMENT on 26/5/2006

6 We were in Business with the same party since 2001-02

7 on 15/5/2006 the outstanding of the particular party was 2,74,000/-

8 The party without our prior intimation make changes on cheques (date was entered) and corrected the date and presented the cheque in bank

9 The party deposted on 20/10/2009 the cheque bounced as Exceeds Arrangement

10 The case is in Court

11 As on date the o/s is 2,74,000/-

PLEASE ADVICE EXACT DEFEND TO UNFIT THE CASE FOR 138

We have all the intention to clear 2,74,000/-but the party is asking for 500000.00as per their books of accounts and not even ready to reconsillation the accounts

waiting eagerly

Reply Follow

6 Replies

Chetan Padm (law) 03 February 2010

here comes 406 and IPC 420.

but you need to prove that you have send the reminder to party not to deposit the cheques.

2. During demand notice of cheque failure also you should have replied the above mentioned

(Guest)

It appears you have a good defense. Please contact a good lawyer along with all the papers. Furnishing advise on incomplete information will spoil your case. You have not given opponents version as contained in his legal notice and the complaint in this thread. My sincere advise contact a lawyer with all your papers. There may be a number of defense which can be developed after seeing the papers.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh) 03 February 2010

If you had instructed the complainant party not to deposit the issued cheques in their bank then it is a good case and in the given circumstances it do not fetch 138 NI Act. You must have engaged your counsel and his opinion shall also prevail in such matter.

AEJAZ AHMED (Legal Consultant/Lawyer) 03 February 2010

Baljit Singh vs Harvinder Singh on 15 January, 2010, Punjab-Haryana High Court

" The appellant-Baljit Singh had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.5.2008, the accused was acquitted of the notice served upon him. Hence, the complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. "

" He had given goods to the accused and had taken three cheques as a security. "

"In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that there were business transaction between the parties and the complainant took four cheques as security from the accused "

No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Attached File : 18 18 baljit singh vs harvinder singh on 15 january 2010.pdf downloaded: 180 times

Anil Agrawal (Retired) 09 February 2010

The simple bible of 138 is "holder of the cheque in due course".

The rest is history as far as trial is concerned. Guarantor is not excluded.

Anil Agrawal (Retired) 13 February 2010

Dud cheque plaint cannot be lodged by legal heir: HC

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Mumbai: A legal heir cannot file a complaint over a b o u n c e d cheque unless he is authorised to do so by his d e c e a s e d relative, the B o m b ay High Court has ruled in an important order.

    “Only a person who is authorised by succession certificate, letters of administration or probate granted by the court, is entitled to call upon the drawer to pay the amount of dishonoured cheque, by issuing notice,’’ said Justice B R Borkar. The court quashed a process issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Ahmednagar resident Vishnupant Khaire.

    Khaire had issued a cheque of Rs 3 lakh to one Balbhir Madan. Madan died in an accident in 2007. A year later his son Kailash presented the cheque before the bank. When it bounced he lodged a cheque bouncing case against Khaire.

    “By demise of payee itself, it cannot be said that any of the heirs or legatees get the right to lodge a complaint (for a bounced cheque) as if he automatically enters into the shoes of the deceased payee,’’ said the judge.

    The court said that in the present case, Kailash did not furnish either the letters of administration, or probate or succession certificate.

    “He has no authority to demand money and lodge complaint as he cannot give valid discharge for payment made to him,’’ the court said.