N.I.Act-138
DHAVALCHANDRA DOSHI
(Querist) 19 October 2008
This query is : Resolved
Please Guide Me with any supreme Court /Highcourt ciatation/Judgements on following Problem.
I received Cheque of Rs. 5 Lacs against a registered sale Deed of My Plot.That was Post dated cheque when deed was exicuted.The Party given me Rs. 3 Lacs and asked me not to deposit till fifteen daysand he will pay balance within 15 days. But unfortunately He has not paid Rs. 2 Lacs. after 15 days I deposited Cheque wich was return with remark " payment Stopped".
I issued notice to him but did not ansered the same. I filed 138 Case against him.
Now he has taken the stand he is only dues Rs.2 Lacs but I have deposited cheque of Rs. 5 lacs and the case should be dismissed.
Please reply me is there any solution to this?what?
Dhavalchandra Doshi
RASIK DAGLI
(Expert) 20 October 2008
At the time of taking 3 lacs you should have taken a cheque for 2 lacs. Now his defence is valid and your complaint for returnrd cheque of 5 lacs is likely to fail. The better course is to file a civil suit narrating all the details and claiming only remaining 2 lacs.
Adv.Shine Thomas
(Expert) 20 October 2008
Filing civil case is a better solution.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 20 October 2008
Apparent error is committed by depositing a cheque for 5 for a dues of 2 lakhs.
deepak kumar
(Expert) 20 October 2008
you can opt for the line of defence as stated by Srinivas
sanjay kumar patibandla
(Expert) 22 October 2008
have u issued any receipt for 3,00,000/-. If not don't agree that you had received the same amount.
If that matter already came into the case records, I think section 138 is maintainable. because at the time of issuance of cheque there is legal enforceable debt. But he never cleared the entire debt.
at least 420 of IPC applies here. If I found any case law I will inform you.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 23 October 2008
Dear Mr Sanjay
Thanks for good advise. But how can you assume that the client should tell a lai for rupees 3 lakh only? However dinial of averment in suit is common practice but i think it requires no need to take support of falsehood.
