n.i. act
bhushan singh charan
(Querist) 29 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
WHETHER CHEQUE PRESENTEDin catagory of self and by virtue of fraud amont withdrawn from account of drwaer of chequeby another person without permission of drwer nor payment withdrwa nwwhetther person who cheated and without peras given to drwer by holder of cheque. WHETHER PERSON WHO WITHDRAWN MONEY FRADULENTLY CAN TAKE SHELTER OF NI ACT OR NOT. KINDLY REFER CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER?
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 29 April 2011
Before any answer could be provided to your query, please clarify the following:
(1) In this whole episode, what are you (a) the drawyer (or) the other person.
(2) When you talk about taking shelter of N.I. Act, please indicate which provision of N.I. Act you have in mind.
Guest
(Expert) 30 April 2011
Holder of the cheque in case of bearer is treated as the genuine claimant, unless you have a solid proof of cheating, or you ave already lodged FIR about missing cheque and also issued instructions of stop payment to the bank.
Where the question of NI Act arises by the person who has already withdrawn the money?
So, your question, "WHETHER PERSON WHO WITHDRAWN MONEY FRADULENTLY CAN TAKE SHELTER OF NI ACT OR NOT. KINDLY REFER CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER" is illogical.
NI Act applies where you have drawn a cheque in the name of some person, but cheque is disnonoured and he could not withdraw the money.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 30 April 2011
Mr.Dhingra,the first para contains nice explanation but in subsequent paras you are speaking about applicability of section 138 of NI Act. Whether queriest is the drawer of the cheque of apparent payee is not clear. Mr.Ramachandran is correct in seeking clarifications from the queriest. This forum is meant to legally assist the genuine problems, but not meant for persons who wish to find out a way to escape from the law.
Guest
(Expert) 01 May 2011
Dear Malipeddi,
Did I mention about s.138 of NI Act anywhere in my reply?
Sec.138 applies only in case of dishonour of cheque on account of shrtage of funds, while the author of the question has clearly mentioned that the money was withdrawn. So, where is the question of dishonour of cheque and how s.138 of NI Act comes in to picture?
Mr. Rmachandran's questions are not at all nullified by my answer, they still stand, if the querist want the correct solution to his problem.
If you see my reply carefully, on his query "Wether person who withdrawn money fraudulently CAN TAKE SHELTER of NI ACT or not" I have clearly posed a question --
"Where the question of NI Act arises by the person who has already WITHDRAWN the money?"
Shelter of NI Act is taken NOT by the person who has already withdrawn the money, BUT by the person, whose cheque has been dishonoured.
bhushan singh charan
(Querist) 01 May 2011
thanku respected dhingra sir question was clear that fraudently by using self word cheque was presented?and in catagory of self amount was withdrwan fradulently without permission of the drwer of chequeBY third person whom the cheque was never handed over.though the closerelative of person who withdrwan the chequeamount already contesting the case with drwer of the cheque.now whether who withdrwan the amount can claim that cheque was handed over to him against the payment of pending casein which admittly the person who withdrwan the amount was not party.
