Cheque bounce case

As per my knowledge intervening SLP was filed in SC, but it has been dismissed by the Apex Court.

You are talking about jurisdiction matter in cheque bounce case.

 

It is a perfect order and keeps in mind the natural justice..

1. A company situated in Mumbai goes to Patiala and sells goods there and take a cheque. If this cheque gets bounced where will you file the case ??

 

2. A Bank with head office and legal team in Chandigarh, gives loan to a small time business man in Kanyakumari, and takes some cheque. if this cheque bounces where will you file the case ??

 

If the companies / Banks can go and do business at far off places, then they must be ready to get into legal cases also at such places. And please note that innocence is presumed in favor of accused but there is no such presumption that complainant is truthful, so there should be minimum inconvenience to accused in such cases which are quasi civil in nature.

The rate at which these cases are piling on, very soon they will get the notoriety of DV Act (a la S.498A).

Few of laws like NI Act, DV Act, S.354 IPC are quite disturbing and can go well only if perjury is enforced with the same force by the courts, otherwise they will become tools in the hands of dishonest and immoral people.

 

 

Dear Sir, I'm facing 8 cheque bounce cases in different locations, all cases already evidence done. All given cheques cheques for private ltd co. Any possible to shift for one location instead of different locations? Pls clarify. If possible pls send me the sections.

Dear Mr. Trivedi,

Thanks for your kind reply.

You are talking about banks or big business houses. But in our case, we are a small manufacturing unit. people comes from different cities give post dated cheques and buy our products. 

How it is possible for small business owners like us to go into different cities and fight NI act case.

Please guide if there is any relief or other procedure.

Thanks

Get a good advocate and he / she can surely solve your problem.

 

Though the jurisdiction principle is old in criminal cases and SC has just coded it for cheque cases.

 

But other SC Judgements have come simplifying the process and any expert advocate can get you better results even though you may have to go many cities.

So do not accept cheque from people who reside in different cities and you are not sure of them..

 

The relief is, you can file a cheating case under S.420 at your place, you can file civil recovery case at your place. Create terms and condition in your invoice that jurisdiction shall be your place for any dispute. When you take the cheque from such person, get it endorsed in your invoice also.

 

A small manufacturer does not mean that you will be careless, take ample precaution and bind the cheque with your transaction.

@Pankaj Jain Notwithstanding any court judgments, Supreme Court or others, in every law there are the principles of reasonableness and tilting towards the weaker party. If you are doing business in one city and a customer from another city comes to your place, purchases a product and pays you by cheque on a bank with branch in your city, the whole transaction of your selling the goods and the other party purchasing has failed and "the failed transaction" is the cause of action. The dishonor of the cheque should not be looked at in isolation. Mere bouncing of cheque should not be looked at in isolation. A cheque bouncing alone will not attract NI-138. You must be entitled to receive the amount. In order to find out whether you are entitled to receive the amount one has to look at the whole transaction. Long before NI-138 in cases similar to yours police cases have been made under IPC-420 and the culprit arrested by the police. Hence the jurisdiction will be your city only. On the other hand if you take your product to a distant place and sell it there that distant place is the place of cause of action and jurisdiction will be there. It will be for your lawyer to argue before the court effectively. Courts often miss the principle and the lawyers do not point out effectively. Cheating has taken place when the cheque is delivered. Only the dishonor by the bank exposes the cheating. The bank is not cheating you.

Respected Experts,
                                 i am having chq bounse case in court from past 3 years having "at par"  cheques. but due to supreme court judgement now the opponent is asking to shift the case to the drawee bank location. recent mumbai high court judgement favoured at par cases but due to interim stay by supreme court all hopes stopped. what we can do in this case as the stage of summonse and affidavit is completed but cross is pending.