138 chq bounce of security
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 16 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
RESPECTED SIR
I HAVE DEPOSITED SECURITY CHQ ON THE TERM THAT THE COMPLAIN FILLED BY THE PARTY AGAINST ME AN THE CHQ CAN BE DEPOSITED IN BANK BUT THE PARTY DEPOSITED THE CHQ BEFORE ANY DECESION OF COMPLAIN AND FILE SUIT AGAINST ME OF 138 I AM HAVING WRITTEN AGREEMENT IN PLAIN PAPER ALONG WITH MY SIGNATURE
MY QUESTION IS THAT WHETHER THE CASE WILL BE LEGAL WHAT I HAVE TO DO PLEASE QUOTE THE CITATION IF ANY
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 16 January 2012
Dear Querist,
I am sorry to state that the query is not at all clear.
Please clarify your query so as to get appropriate solution.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 16 January 2012
yes unable to understand your query
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 16 January 2012
Endorse the views of my friends.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 January 2012
true!query is not a speaking one.However to guess if you mean cheque was handed over as security but not to discharge any realizable
debt,then the complain is bad in law.
Clarify facts first to know any thing more.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 18 January 2012
Still no response from the author.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 01 February 2012
i have deposited to one parson the 3 security purpose chq the chq so given by me was only for the security purpose not any liability
the liability only is that if my promise to the party that if i am wrong on the promise made on certain complain filled by the party against me come true and i am wrong than the party can incash the security chq.
the complain made by party was come in favour of me and i was not liabile to that party and ask to the party return my security chq but he deposited in bank and file case u/s 138 the court also regisrered the case
one more thing is that we have written documents on above fact along with signature of the party
please suggest me what i will do
if any case law is there please quote the same
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 February 2012
well after 16 days of posting your query you have clarified the puzzle raised by you .
it appears you have given cheque as security . howver the complainant has refused to rturn the cheque and deposited the same which have been dishonoured on presentation .
if you have documentary evidence that cheques were given as security only to be encashed on happening of particular event
then you are not liable on cheque being dishonoured on presentation
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 February 2012
Banks can't prosecute if collateral cheque bounces: Bombay HC
Shibu Thomas, TNN Feb 20, 2010, 01.32am ISTMUMBAI: Bombay HC has ruled banks cannot prosecute borrowers under the stringent anti-cheque bouncing laws if blank post-dated cheques issued by them as collateral security are dishonoured.
''It is doubtful if the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can apply to a case in which a blank or post-dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amounts as security for the loan,'' said Justice P R Borkar. The order is likely to come as a huge setback to lending agencies who ask borrowers to deposit blank post-dated cheques as security. ''Law-makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post-dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers repay the loan under threat of prosecution and punishment (under the cheque-bouncing law),'' added the judge.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 February 2012
In following cases bouncing of cheques which were
given as security for loan amounts were held not to attract
provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act :1)
Anand Urban Cooperative
Credit Society V/s.
Vipin Lalchand Mehta & Anr., 2008 (2) Bom.C.R.
(Cri.) 65 : 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2266.
2) Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries
Development Corporation Ltd., V/s. Samudra
Ropes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2005 ALL MR (Cri)
2643 : 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 157.
3) Hanumant R. Naik V/s. Ajit Harmalkar, 2008 (1)
Bom.C.R. (Cri) 432 : 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 486.
4) M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani V/s. State of
Kerala and Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C.39.
5) Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Shri M.N.
Bashyam & Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3073 : 2008
(3) B.C. 98.
6) Jayantilal Parmar V/s. Vaishali Farne (2007)
2 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 403.
7) Om Shri Finance & Investment Corporation V/s.
Mohemmed Sheikh (2007) 11 LJSOFT (URC) 24.
( 15 )
16. In Anand Urban Cooperative
Credit Society V/s.
Vipin Mehta, 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 65, trial court held
that 5 blank cheques were obtained towards security for
repayment of loan as in this case. This Court refused to
interfere with the order of acquittal.
17. In Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Shri M.N. Bashyam
& Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3073, it is held that though the
accused had taken loan from the complainant, he proved that
the blank cheque was issued by him towards collateral
security for loan and interest. It is held that the cheque
cannot be said to be issued towards discharge of a debt and
same would not come under purview of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. Similarly, in the case of Jayantilal Parmar V/s.
Vaishali Farne (2007) 2 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 403, three blank
cheques were given as security for loan amount. Two cheques
were encashed and third was bounced. The Single Bench of
this Court refused to interfere with the order of acquittal.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 February 2012
RESP.SIR
THANKING YOU FOR THE VALUABLE CASE LAW AND REPLY SIR WHERE I CAN GET THESE BOOKS BECAUSE IN OUR COURT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT AVILABLE SIR PLEASE TELL ME FROM WHERE I CAN GET IT ALL QUOTED CASE LAWS
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 09 February 2012
Anonymous query,
now you pl identify
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 February 2012
In following cases bouncing of cheques which were
given as security for loan amounts were held not to attract
provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act :1)
Anand Urban Cooperative
Credit Society V/s.
Vipin Lalchand Mehta & Anr., 2008 (2) Bom.C.R.
(Cri.) 65 : 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2266.
2) Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries
Development Corporation Ltd., V/s. Samudra
Ropes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2005 ALL MR (Cri)
2643 : 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 157.
3) Hanumant R. Naik V/s. Ajit Harmalkar, 2008 (1)
Bom.C.R. (Cri) 432 : 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 486.
4) M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani V/s. State of
Kerala and Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C.39.
5) Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Shri M.N.
Bashyam & Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3073 : 2008
(3) B.C. 98.
6) Jayantilal Parmar V/s. Vaishali Farne (2007)
2 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 403.
7) Om Shri Finance & Investment Corporation V/s.
Mohemmed Sheikh (2007) 11 LJSOFT (URC) 24.
( 15 )
16. In Anand Urban Cooperative
Credit Society V/s.
Vipin Mehta, 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 65, trial court held
that 5 blank cheques were obtained towards security for
repayment of loan as in this case. This Court refused to
interfere with the order of acquittal.
17. In Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Shri M.N. Bashyam
& Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3073, it is held that though the
accused had taken loan from the complainant, he proved that
the blank cheque was issued by him towards collateral
security for loan and interest. It is held that the cheque
cannot be said to be issued towards discharge of a debt and
same would not come under purview of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. Similarly, in the case of Jayantilal Parmar V/s.
Vaishali Farne (2007) 2 Bom.C.R. (Cri) 403, three blank
cheques were given as security for loan amount. Two cheques
were encashed and third was bounced. The Single Bench of
this Court refused to interfere with the order of acquittal.
SIR WHERE I CAN GOT THESE CASE LAW BECAUSE I AM IN MP AND THESE ARE RELATED TO MUMBAI HIGH COURT IF ITS AVAILABLE AT MUMBAI PLEASE GIVE ME ADDRESS
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 February 2012
we are no longer replying to anonymous queries . beofre the bar came into effect i had in support of proposition cited various judgements .
we cant now give you copies of said judgements . do google search
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 February 2012
Respected sir
please advise me that three separate cases filled in court by the party against me of section 138 all cheques given for the same purpose
my quary is that different court deal the same case and same matter is tenable or i can appeal before the court for single consolidate one case .
if any case law is there please quote the same
thanking you sir
