N.i.act ,1881
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 December 2019
This query is : Resolved
I HAVE SEND NOTICE TO DIRECTOR AND COMPANY FOR REPAYMENT OF CHEQUE AMOUNT WITHIN 15 DAYS . ONE OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON COMPANY AND 15 DAY TIME EXPIRED ON 20/11/2019 AND ANOTHER NOTICE TO DIRECTOR RETURN BACK ON 25/11/2019 AND TIME OF 15 DAYS EXPIRES ON 9/12/2019 SO WHAT THE DATE OF CAUSE OF ACTION . WHETHER THERE WILL BE TWO CAUSE OF ACTION.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 11 December 2019
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
What is the opinion and advise of your lawyer whom you have consulted, engaged and paid. S/he is better aware about facts of the case, intelligent, able and competent enough to guide/ advise and proceed ?
Disclose your identity while posting any query as per rule of this platform.
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 11 December 2019
Cause of action starts on the 15th day of your notice when the party fails to pay you your cheque amount.
Everything else is not much material.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 11 December 2019
Thanks to Mr.Rajasekhraran for reply. Sir I am D.K.Agarwal,Advocate . One Notice period of 15th day of Notice to the company period expired on 20/11/2019 and another to the director on 09/12/2019. So my queer is whether can be two cause of action in a single compliant . Please advise.
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 11 December 2019
I do remember reading about such YYa case law in a Textbook on NIA carrying commentaries but I don't remember what was exactly the SC decision.
What I remember is that when you send a notice and the limitation starts running there cannot be a second cause of action.
Since I am away from books at my station, I am unable to answer precisely right now.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 11 December 2019
THANKS A LOT. I WILL WAIT FOR PRECISE REPLY
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 11 December 2019
What I stated above from my vague memory is not the right position but it is the other way round.
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 11 December 2019
The SC by s three judge bench in MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another (2013 ((1) SCC 177) held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that forbids the holder of the Cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on the second or successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation. This has been cited by a recent judgement too as it a well settled position.
In the case M/S. Sicagen India Ltd. v. Mahindra Vadineni & Ors decided on 8th January this year, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that complaint for cheque bounce under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 based on a second statutory notice is maintainable.
K Rajasekharan
(Expert) 11 December 2019
The judgement stated above is available on Indian Kanoon.
