Single cheque---shared liability by two ppl ??
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
This query is : Resolved
I gave training of meditation to one father and her daughter for 30 long days.
Daughter gave me cheque as fees for her father and herself.
Actually this cheque was given for the fees of both of them (Admission form , attendance form was signed by both of them collectively).
Now the cheque bounced.
Should I send notice to both of them or to the daughter only??
How would I be able to involve her father legally as cheque belonged to the daughter only and I can't leave the father because all the docs were signed by both of them collectively as I have already described.
Plz. guide........
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 08 January 2011
Both daughter and father are accused under N.I. act. You may involve both of them by sending notices to both of them.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
But sir, I have read some where that guarantors can't be prosecuted under NIA 138.
But this matter is certainly of not guarantor but of shared liability--I am confused whether my case would fall under NIA 138 or not ?
Amit Minocha
(Expert) 08 January 2011
I disagree with Mr Bansal Completely, 138 would only hold against the signatory and not against the others except incase of cases against corporates. Even a third party liability cheque is covered under section 138. In this case daughter gave chq for liability of herself and father as well.amitminocha@yahoo.com
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 08 January 2011
Issue notice to both, but father will definately seek for discharge, because cheque is not belongs to him. So pleading in the complaint is very important.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Amit ji thnx that U replied but your response seems contradictory to me as you have said---
138 would only hold against the signatory and not against the others except incase of cases against corporates.
And then
Even a third party liability cheque is covered under section 138. In this case daughter gave chq for liability of herself and father as well.
Both of these statements seems contradictory to me.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Adv. rajoo ,respected sir ,of course father would seek discharge but whether he would be discharged or not by the court of law that is the question----what do your precious experience and knowledge and wisdom say--please share....
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 08 January 2011
Only the daughter is liable to be prosecuted, as from her account the cheque is dishonoured and the same was signed by her though the liability was 50% of her father.
sachin sethi
(Expert) 08 January 2011
agreed with Mr. Bhagat and Mr. Minocha.....only signatory of the cheque can be prosecuted....but take pleadings in your complaint with regard to father also without arraying him an accused...in your case daughter is not guarantor for her father rather she is paying you amount on behalf of her father and this is a legal liability...issue notice only to daughter....
sachin sethi
(Expert) 08 January 2011
daughter is liable for whole of amount....
Guest
(Expert) 08 January 2011
NANDKUMAR B.SAWANT.M.COM.LL.B.(MUMBAI),ADVOCATE
MOBILE.09960223100, 09271971251
e.mail.advocatesawantnb@yahoo.com
e.mail.nandkumarbs@sify.com
REGARDING DISHONOURED CHEQUE SIGNED BY DAUGHTER AND PAID TOWARDS FEES FOR FATHER AND SELF,KINDLY NOTE THAT,
KINDLY NOTE THAT YOU HAVE TO SEND LEGAL NOTICE TO THE DAUGHTER AS SHE IS THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OF THE CHEQUE AND IF PAYMENT IS NOT MADE THEN FILE THE CASE UNDER SEC.138 OF N.I.ACT AGAINST THE DRAWER OF SAID CHEQUE.GOOD LUCK.
Kirti Kar Tripathi
(Expert) 08 January 2011
I am waiting for reply of Mr. Shashikumar. In my opinion the cheque was issued to discharge of liability of both parties as such both may be impleded as parties in the case.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Shashi Ji, U are being missed, please come, after all U are expert in defending 138.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 08 January 2011
You can prosecute the person who had issued the cheque only. You can not include a person, for whom the cheque was issued.
So, only the daughter can be prosecuted. You can not include the father as the A2.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 08 January 2011
Thank you sir , since I am busy preparing for a writ in SC for clearity of gray areas of NI 138 and also facing hostile reactions for in in forum section for this effort.
In this querry the Gentalman is seeking liability against meditation and still he is not at peace with himself.
Well beyond this querry please give your inputs on following gray areas in NI 138 trials.
1) No provision for giving copies of complaint and documents in summons cases., even on demand.
2) Normally summons are issued without any copies of complaint and relevant papers.
3) In some courts even summons are printed by private parties and got signed from court staff.
3) No provision for dismissal /discharge in false or illegal cases.
4) NBW S are being issued as a rule without any specific provision.More than 60,000 bogus NBW worth 15000 crores value were issued at Bangaluru very recently and no real action against the culprits.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 January 2011
Sahsi ji ,
first u do not know that i am male or female but your prejudice mind declared me a "gentleman"
and
U have also declared me that I am not at peace --contrary statements a "gentleman" is he who is gentle --how can he be not at peace.
Next knowing meditation does not mean that one should not fight for her/his rights---Remember Guru Gobind Singh Ji--Sant Sipahi.
Next instead of participating in this discussion ,U are advertising Ur cause unreasonably.
To tell u the truth---I feel that U would not succeed in your writ and your motive is also not in the welfare of the society.
