138 NI ACT

Post complete details of the case, from the query it is noticed that the cheque did not bounce on account of insufficient funds or stop payment instructions of the drawer, which constitute the basis for offence under S.138 of the NI Act

Good Morning,

It does not attract 138 NI Act.  Bank has issued memo to use the ABN amro bank cheque. NI act is application in case of funds insuficient and stop payment.  For the stop payment some times it doesn't attracts because prior intimation to the compalainant and bank were issued regarding the reason for stop payment.

1.  At the time of clearance of cheque the Bank did not Exist.  This non-existance of the bank was in lieu of a Statutory provision under the RBI Act and the  Banking Act.
 

2.  If a event has occurred due to a Statutory provision, all other provisions of other laws, will not be applicable.

3.  All cheque instruments, drafts, fixed deposits and other negotiable instruments of the bank become void.
 

4.  A cheque which is void under a statutory provision in law, cannot be used as a means to prosecute in a court of law.
 

5. Certain technicalites are involved, which the drawer of the cheque should have volutnarily followed, due to such statutory changes.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

It does not attract 138 NI Act.

no, complaint is not made out.

It does not attract the section 138 of N.I.Act.

IT WONT COME UNDER 138

The  basic  requirements  for  constituting  the  offence  under  section 138  of NI  Act  are  not  fulfilled. Hence, it  does  not  fall  under  the  domain  of  the  said  Act.

It does not come under 138 NI Act.

hi alli had buisness with one of my patner in pvt lmt firm and also had propritership firm but six months back got dispute bec of land with undividedshare in patnership and had the brek up in buisness but in due course my patner had got aceess on my blank cheque book of my prop.firm and drawn the cheque with forge sig to on of our comman client with melafoid intension to surrenger to his illegal demand but any how there was insufficent fund and cheque dishounered and in meanwhile was not aware about same that has happen in month on april as i dint notice to chech my ac but when i check my ac statement i was shocked now commom client has filed case under sec 138 all the paper were handle by my patner and i take care for other matter although summon as not been serviced till yet how i can fight case case in filed in nanital but my buisness is in delhi and bank is laso in delhi how i can get case in delhi

DEAR NITIN,

 HERE IS LATEST CASE LAW FOR YOU QUERY,

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT1881-SECTION 138-CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SECTION-177-DETERMISSION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT-HELD-JURISDICTION OF COURT TO TRY A CRIMINAL CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVOSION OF CR.P.C. AND NOT ON COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE-A COURT DESERVES A JURISDICTION ONLY WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WITHIN HIS TERROTORIAL JURISDICTION-THE SAME CANNOT BE CONFIRMED BY ANY ACT OR OMMISSION OR COMMISSION ON PART OF ACCUSED. N.I.ACT.SECT.138-NOTICE-LEGALITY-HELD- WHILE ISSUENCE OF NOTICE BY HOLDER OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT IS SERVICE THEREOF IS ALSO IMPERATIVE-GIVING NOTICE THEREFORE CANNOT PRECEDENT OVER THE SERVICE.

IMPORTANT LAW POINT A COUT DERIVES A JURISDICTION ONLY WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION-THAT CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY ANY ACT OR OMMISSION ON PART OF ACCUSED.

GIVING NOTICE ONLY CANNOT HAVE PRECEDENT OVER THE SERVICE.

M/S HARMAN ELECTRONICS V/S NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA. D C R. 2009[1] PAGE 1 SUPREME COURT.

secton 138 of n i act is not applicable

 I think service of the notice at the last known address is enough. Its receipt is not required if it is proved that notice was sent by registered post.