Cheque bouncing case

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017 This query is : Resolved
Please let me know when cause of action arises and during what period(From & To) a complaint u/s 138 can be filed
in below cited case.

1.Notice Issued on 14.07.17

2.As per India Post Tracking System "Item Delivery Attempt Unclaimed" on 04.08.17

3. Envelop received by the addressee on 05.08.17

4. The payee intending to file case on 18.07.17 .Whether it will be premature?

5. What is the position/meaning of "Unclaimed" ?

6. whether Payee need to wait for 15 days before lodging Complaint?

Look forward for specific answers? Thanks in advance?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Sorry Payee intending to lodge Complaint on 18.08.17

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Querry open please / unresoled

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 14 August 2017
Notice unclaimed on 04-08 2017. 15 day time given to compliance the notice hence cause of action to file complaint will arise on 19 -08-2017 and complaint can be filed up to 28 sept 2017.If payee intending to file complaint on 18 0-08 2017 ,it will be premature and liable to be dismissed.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 14 August 2017
You can benefit from the advise of Mr. Bhartesh Goyal...

Advocate M.Bhadra (Expert) 14 August 2017
If the drawer/accused received notice on 5.8.2017 then case to be filed after 20.8.2017, but within 20.9 2017 (30 days).

Important aspect for initiating proceedings u/s 138 or 141 of negotiable instruments act. You have to send a legal notice within 30 days from the date of return (dishonour) of cheque asking the notice to pay the amount within 15 days. On expiry of fifteen days from the service of notice, you have to file a complaint before the Concerned magistrate within 1 month of the said expiry.

However, it is pertinent to note that nothing impediment you from filing a separate Civil Suit (summary suit) for recovery of the amount due the limitation of which is 3 years from the cause of action/ date of dishonour.

Guest (Expert) 14 August 2017
Dear Shri AK Mishra,

Do you mean notice issued without receipt of information of the bouncing of cheque and the date of receipt of such information?

Please, you have omitted the very crucial and basic information about the date of maturity of the cheque, date of presentation of the cheque in the bank, and the date of receipt of the dishonour memo by you. All other things are secondary ones.

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Bhadra ji Sender of the notice received back Unclaimed Envelop on 05.08.17 .
However as per India Post Tracking system "Delivery Attempted Unclaimed is 04.08.17.
Whether case can be filed on 19.8.17 as Mr. Bhartesh Goyal ji has replied?

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Goyal sir I think you have wrongly quoted date as 28.09.17 .Please confirm as it has to be 30 days from cause of action.

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Dhingra Sir you are miles away from question. It is about the notice computation of Casuse of action after Notice is issued.Nothing to do with details of cheque please

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Goyal sir if filed on 19.8.17,it will all right?

Advocate M.Bhadra (Expert) 14 August 2017
Query is not fully clear rather contradictory version. Non-delivery or unclaimed notice situation may be solved by publishing it in a newspaper duly permitted by the court.
Moreover the complainant can file a civil suit(summary suit) which I have stated earlier.

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 14 August 2017
You can file complaint within 30 days from 19-08-2017.

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Thanks Mr.Bhartesh Goyal ji for the advise.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 14 August 2017
Agree with the expert Advocate Bhartesh goyal.

Guest (Expert) 14 August 2017
Mr. AK Mishra,

Don't try to be over smart. I am not miles away from the question when you ask for the cause of action without supplying even the basic facts. Rather you are miles away from the real problem, as yours is merely an academic query, not a problem. This is clearly evident from your statement, "the payee intending to file case by 18.08.17, that this is not your own problem. Don't think that the experts here are meant for delivering tutorials to the law students just to solve their academic exercises. If you have asked a question, you are obliged to bring full facts before them, particularly about fulfillment of the criteria spelled in provisos under the section, rather than showing your arrogance by telling them, "you are miles away from question." Contrarily, your question is quite vague, as its description does not fulfill any of the criteria spelled in any of the clauses of proviso under sec. 138.

Mind it, you are NOT obliging the experts by posting your question. Rather the experts are obliging you by rendering a charity service to you, if you really have any such problem. FURTHER, YOU OR THE PAYEE, WHOSOEVER BE, WERE OBLIGED TO ASK SUCH QUESTION FROM THE OWN LAWYER THROUGH WHOM THE CASE IS PROPOSED TO BE FILED.

In fact you have not applied your own brain even a bit on the issue of return back of the notice. The reason "delivery attempted unclaimed," has no relevance for the purpose of section 138, as against the term of "receipt of notice" by the drawer. Failure in delivery of the speed post on the part of the postal system without refusal by the addressee, if address is correct, cannot be attributed to the drawer/addressee.

Better go through the section thoroughly, analyse that and find answer yourself for your academic exercise.

AK Misra (Querist) 14 August 2017
Mr Dhingra what I wrote is confirmed from your reply. Unclaimed notice is a fit case to be considered and being considered U/s 138. Please update yourself. One thing I can tell you that most of the Querrists know the Answer and they are studied people.They just want to have 2nd opinion and clarity & confirmation on subject. Mr.Goyal righty received the querry and replied. I already thanked him. Let us learn from him how to resolve problem with specific reply backed by law point. Celebrate Independence day and allow independence of expression and sending queries. Jai Bharat-Jai Hind

Kumar Doab (Expert) 14 August 2017
Happy Independence Day to citizens of Republic of India...........

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 15 August 2017
Expert Kumar Doab,

Thanks and heartily reciprocate.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 15 August 2017
Dear Mr. Rajendra K Goyal,

Thanks for your reciprocation....

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 16 August 2017
Is it not a professional topic for debate to earn fees from clients?

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 17 August 2017
@ A K Mishra,
You are in the habit of asking same/similar questions, list of few of them is as follows:-
Present question
"Cheque bouncing"
2 months ago
"Cheque bouncing"
6 months ago
"Application under order 7 rule 11"
7 months ago
"Cheque bouncing"
10 months ago
"Cheque bouncing"
10 months ago
"Cheue bouncing"
11 months ago
"Cheue bouncing"
11 months ago
"Cheque bouncing"
11 months ago
"Cheue bouncing"
11 months ago
"Bouncing of cheque"
about a year ago

Did you ask your tutor qua your questions? It is abuse of this site, stop it.

AK Misra (Querist) 17 August 2017
Mr.Vashistha please admit you have no answer. You have written such a long comment without any answer.
First of all I have not asked similar questions at all. But the section is similar There can be thousands querries from that section.
I really make querries to clear my doubts . Very few Experts really precisely reply as they know subject. Please let me know is there is any system in the forum to reveiw periodically performance and standard of an Experts. I would like to make some references to have a atleast a minimum standard. Please do abuse Querriests. They are the purpose of your existence as EXPERT. Take in proper spirit.Over

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
Dear Dr. J.C. VASHISTA,

It is unnecessary, purposeless, but frustrated attempt of IT=@PSD in this thread also to get some attention and FEE as observed by you...............but in fact it is another of IT's trademark daily nuisance, TamASHA, abuse, sarcasm at LCI..............

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
The insatiable urge/itch of IT=@PSD to abuse can also be seen at:

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Case-against-bank-employees-in-district-consumer-forum-651291.asp

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
@ A.K.Misra,

This is in reference to your last post to Dr.J.C.Vashista.

There are many experts at LCI that post daily and even for years ; wholeheartedly, illustrate, support with adequate citations of enactments, extent clauses, judgments .....................illustrations..................and FREE

They do not need any existence, as written by you.

There is NO dearth of person wanting to consult such experts...........

The querists at LCI visit for them and their repute and repute that they have brought to LCI...........

And there is NO dearth of threads and querist that have posted that IT=@PSD should not post any reply in threads initiated by you.............

You may not see otherwise in posts of Dr. J.C.Vashista....

Guest (Expert) 17 August 2017
Mr. AK Mishra,

My reply does not in any way confirm that unclaimed notice is a fit case for the purpose of section 138. It is your sheer misunderstanding seemingly you being quite an over confident person. I very well knoe that yours is merely an academic query, not a real problem. I challenge you if you face some real problem like that, just try to win, if the other side would make you win. Don't think that a drawer of a cheque is compelled to go for search of a notice and to claim himself just to get implicated in a case intended to be filed by you. If you are so confident about your knowledge, just tell, which part of the section confirms that an uncalimed notice can also be treated as delivered to the drawer of the cheque.

Further, you are again in a misunderstanding that the querists are the purpose of existence of the experts, as if you think they don't have to attend to their own professional real life business pertaining to the jobs of their own clients. Of course, the querists can be the purpose of existence of Mr Kumar Doab, a poser with fake identity, who is doubted to belong to a terrorist group in his hide out and spends his whole day at the LCI by making vague and misleading posts all the times without knowing anything about law. If he does not belong to a terrorist group, he may take the challenge, come out from his hideout and challenge me through a court of law.

By the way, out of his 6 posts, what type of legal advice Mr. Kumar Doab has given to you. He made his posts merely to put fuel to the fire to instigate and provoke you against me. I can bet with you, he would not come forward with his real name, identity and place of location even on your personal request, as he flatly refused in writing in over more than 100 threads at LCI. He does not possess any knowledge of law, what to say of his being a qualified lawyer.

Anyway, if you are pleased with your own contentious knowledge, you may live with that.

AK Misra (Querist) 17 August 2017
Mr.Bhartesh Goyal has perfectly and precisely advised me. Rest(barring few) devoted time in what you can understand from their reply which was no way related to my querry. Only bossism. Once again thanks to Mr.Goyal who I think is in active practice that is why he instantly replied. He commands respect. Thank you forum and wait for my querry based on real practicing problem/experience.

Guest (Expert) 17 August 2017
Mr. Mishra,

Thanks, an arrogant person, like you, showed respect at least for one of the experts, Shri Bhartesh Goyal.
But be aware, a knowledge seeker must be a humble, as arrogance can't make you learn much, what you may be aiming at;

AK Misra (Querist) 17 August 2017
Dhingra Sir, your contribution to my present querry is ZERO. Otherwise I would have thanked you as well. That much I can say. I expect you to contribute and enlighten me only on subject of querry. By the way knowledge giver should be more humble and receive positive criticism in the proper spirit. Section 138 of NIA is my favourite field . But non of my question is a repeat question.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
The good for nothing posts of IT=@PSD more so last and 2nd last are nothing new and is same old TRADEMARK TAMASHA, nuisance, abuse, sarcasm that IT has been littering at LCI for years from multiple ID's and also with fake names that has been blocked, cancelled and shunted out.............

AK Misra (Querist) 17 August 2017
Mr. Doab just count how many of Experts have touched Querry.Hardly few.Others have been indulging in non sence writings to hide lack of knowledge.Introspect who is absurd.I am not inviting forcefully to answer . One should keep quite if definite answer is not available. Do not be biased.Think from our point of view. Our expectations from Experts is very high.And we feel secure by asking them solutions to our problem. Still some will indulge in unnecessary chatting,out of contest,fitting reply/response bound to be there obviously. This freedom allows freedom of asking.If we are afraid to ask we are afraid to Learn. My querry has 32 hits.Expected to reach 50 if we will continue like this.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
Mr. Misra, I have already posted in the beginning and later.
You are satisfied with the response and you have already responded.

It does happen the query gets addressed in initial posts or afterwards............

Kumar Doab (Expert) 17 August 2017
The count of 50 may be less if time tested old habits of IT=@PSD are recalled...

AK Misra (Querist) 18 August 2017
Good day all experts

Cheque bouncing case

Similar Resolved Queries :