Cheque bounce
VINAY B SHAH
(Querist) 21 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
RESPECTED SIR,
I AM A COMPLAINANT AND I FILED ONE COMPLAINT IN WHICH REASON FOR CHEQUE BOUNCE IS "ACCOUNT CLOSED".
IF ANYONE HAVE ANY JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE SAME.
THANK YOU
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 21 March 2013
just see the ak choudry & ors vs nandita malhotra 2007 (4) CCC 593 (delhi)
VINAY B SHAH
(Querist) 21 March 2013
RESPECTED SIR,
IF ANYONE HAVE MOOR JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE SAME.
THANK YOU
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 21 March 2013
News from MONEYLIFE on 21.03.2013
The apex court has taken a strict view of cases where cheques are dishonoured
In a recent judgement on cheque bounce issues, the Supreme Court, while taking into consideration genuine cases, has suggested to follow the principle of the Laxmi Dyechem Vs State of Gujarat & Others, on a case to case basis as it is also necessary to properly judge the intention of the accused to avoid wrongful conviction.
Scope of Sec 138 prior to the SC ruling in Laxmi Dyechem
According to the limited scope assigned to Section 138 of the Act, a dishonour of cheque would constitute an offence under Section 138\142 only in the event of following two contingencies:
i. Insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the drawer, i.e. the amount promised to be honoured through the cheque exceeds the amount standing to the credit of the drawer’s account; or
ii. The amount to be paid by the drawer through the cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement with the bank. It, therefore, essentially provides that the bank cannot make payment from an account in excess of what is agreed between the banker and the respective drawer.
Prior to the judgment of Laxmi Dyechem, the scope of the Section was broadened by the Supreme Court to include within its ambit, the following grounds, based on which an action can lie under Section 138\142:
a. Instructions by drawer to bank to stop payment after the cheque have been issued 1;
b. Closing the bank account with the mala fide intention of not honouring the liability/ debt2.
c. Dishonour of cheque even after notice to the payee to not present the cheque3.
VINAY B SHAH
(Querist) 22 March 2013
RESPECTED SIR,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT REPLY
IF MOOR JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE SAME.
THANK YOU
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 22 March 2013
Laxmi Dychem case is latest 2012 case decided by SC and it has closed many such doors like AC CLOSED , CHANGE OF SIGNATURE, CHANGE OF CONSTITUENTS etc etc and has laid down a principle that cheque bounce is genus and all other reasons are species of the genus.
How ever the accused in cheque bounce cases have many many and many legal route to come out since complainants in over confidence make many mistakes and if the accused is alert from day one with proper legal aid and not clumsy , illusory defense than it is as good as cake walk.
The basic line of action has to be to find faults and exploit them and forget about lousy defense theories.
Golden rule of defense is counter attack with accuracy and force.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 March 2013
you have been provided with suffoicent judgements by experts
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 March 2013
Why do you require more and more judgments? Have you to publish the book for such citations?
