CHEQUE DISHONOUR

J. P. Shah (Querist) 07 July 2008 This query is : Resolved
MY FRIEND WAS FORCED TO WRITE A CHEQUE FOR 50000/- ON OTHER BANK IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK FROM WHOM HE HAD BORROWED 4 LACS FOR HOUSE BY THE OFFICERS OF THE BANK UNDER THREAT OF POLICE ACTION ETC. THE FRIEND IMMEDIATELY STOPPED THE PAYMENT AND STATED TO THE DRAWEE BANK THAT CHEQUE WAS OBTAINED UNDER THREAT. HE ALSO LODGED COMPLAINT WITH POLICE SUPTDT AND MENTIONED COERSION AND THREAT ETC. HE HOLDS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ON PHOTOCOPIES.THERE WAS NO OVERDUE TO THE EXTENT OF 50000/- ON THE DAY OF OBTAINING CHQ. BANK HAS INVOKED SEC 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT FOR DISHONOUR OF CHQ. PL ADVISE MY FRIEND WHETHER ABOVE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO ABSOLVE HIM. HE HAS ADJUSTED HIS LOAN ACCOUNT NOW.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 07 July 2008
It appears to be sufficient, produce all these during the trail without fail.

arunprakaash.m. (Expert) 07 July 2008
Under section 16 of the indian contract act 1872 a contract entered under duress and coersion is a voidable contract.

J. P. Shah (Querist) 07 July 2008
THANKS KOTRESH AND ARUNPRAKASH FOR YOUR PROMPT GUIDANCE.

H. S. Thukral (Expert) 07 July 2008
You frineds case raises doubts in the story. Where the threat has gone now after he has advised the bank to stop payment on the cheque? What stopped your friend from lodging the complaint before issuance of cheque.?

The only factor which might help your friend in the case is that he had suffcient funds in his bank when the cheque was presented for payment. If he did not have sufficient fund in his account this kind of defence might not come helpful. If bank can prove the debt liability the case will be made out.

J. P. Shah (Querist) 07 July 2008
Chq pertained to other bank and hence he just delivered a letter against akt of that bank next day before clearing .As for dsp letter, third day he went with advocate and got the letter inwarded. Thus there was no pressure at other drawee bank or at dsp office. The lending bank's 5 officials from their regional office recovery dept were horrible as he and his wife described. they were like goondas and used that language and gestures etc. he also asked for police protection for his family from dsp. These officers became hostile not for recovery of overdue of less than 5000/-five thousand only, but because he refused to their repeated demands for providing english liquor and non veg food to them every week. gujarat is a dry state and my friend does not eat nonveg.later on they threw his family out of flat in his absence under securitisation act when he was not there. They just locked and went off. after 15 months compromise was arrived at when these officers got transfered to their native places by the new manager and regional head.

Jithendra.H.J (Expert) 08 July 2008
in 138 proceedings there always a presumption infavour of the drawee that the cheque has been issued/drawn towards leagally enforciable debt. it is the burden on the accused to prove that the no consideration is passed, and there is no liability, no leagally enfoceable debt. your fried has to rebutt the presumption by using these dcocuments.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries