Sec 138 c of negotiable instrument act

Stipulated time for payment means : within 15 days from the datea of receipt of the notice.

Cause of action to filke a complaint arises next day after the expiry of 15th day.

Dear Querist

as per your Doubt my opinion is mention below

1)  1).  What is the stipulated time means, as per N.I act, is it 30 days or 15 days,

Opinion: 15 days  according to Section 138 (b) of NI Act

2)  2) On what day the case of action arises per N.I act, from the receipt of notice.  As  per as per sec 138 (C) of N.I Act.

Opinion: the cause of actione arises after 15 days if the accused/drawer fails  to make the payment(after 16th day of the reciept of the notice)

3)  3)  What is the day before which a complaint has to be field before the court of law, is it 45 days or 60 days, from the receipt of notice by the accused. Any citation supporting the theory.

Opinion: after finish the 15 days of Notice period the cause of action arises from 16 days and the time limit to file the case before court is one month from that 16th day.

4)   4)   Is there any amendment in N.I act that cause of action arises only after 30 days of receipt of notice and citation regarding the issue.

Opinion: No amendment in this regard.

5)   5)   Is there  any amendment in  sec 138 (C) of N.I Act.

last amendment in 2002

Read the section 138 of NI ACt carefully

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid. either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice. to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

Respected adv. rajeev and  Nadeem Quresh, thank you for your valueable advice.

Dear Mr. Querashi,

I would like to bring in to your kind notice,the amendment made in section 138 (b) vide amendment (Act No 55 of 2002 ) dated 17.12.2002 (w.e.f.06.02.2003) vide which time period has been increased from 15 days to 30 days.

Ajit Singh Cheema

Advocate CHEEMA you are coming once in a while on this site, studied people like you will add quality to inputs.

Cheque bounce is a hot subject now and more and more such responses are essential.

Respected Ajit Singh Cheema sir, is there any citation or law that delay in filing the cheque case complaint, after 15 days of cause of action without qiving notice to the accused,

Dear  Cheema Sahab

Thanks for your reply, I remember about the Amendment but unfortunatily forget to write 30 day because tthe query is not related to this period or time.

 thanks again  Sir 

No citation needed it is basic provision in the law.

However if the process is issued after cause of action expired than the proceddings are illegal.

However what to do in such situation for that I also request other Ld experts to give their suggestions.

Dear Frnd,

I want to query about Sec. 138 of N.I. Act Case, the complainant is complain in his banker's jurisdiction  I am from accused side the case is running in evidence stage Can I transferred the said case to Banker's jurisdiction where the cheque was issued which is in another State. Kindly advice me in details.

Thanks 

ASHWINI SINHA

Ashwin Sinha ji, 

With the current status i.e. in accordance with the Hon'ble supreme Court judgement in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs State of Maharashtra & anr the jurisdiction to try the matter is where the Bank of the Drawer is situated,

If the cheque is 'at par cheque' then in that case in accordance the recent Bombay High Court Judgement in  Ramanbhai M. Patel vs State of Maharashtra & Anr dt.25.08.2014, the jurisdiction lies with the court in whos jurisdiction the cheque was actually dishonoured.

But in your case where the evidence is already adduced the matter will be tried in the same court.

Regards

ADV. RS Thakur

Dear S. Ajit Singh cheema ji, i need to know about the liablity fastenwed under Sec 138, pertains to legaly enforceable debt, so can un accounted  money (not shown in books of account or in income tax returns by the comlaintant) can be said as a legally enfore\cible det or other liabilty. Please do favour and cite some recent Supreme Court  or our own, Punjab andd Haryana, high court judgements

regards

Vinod

The Parliament has passed amendment in cheque law eliminating all confusion for jurisdiction.

Now the jurisdiction is where the cheque is presented for collection.

Regarding legal liability even if income is not shown in ITR , it does not become illegal. There are many HC judgments particularly Bombay HC.

Cheque bounce cases should be contested by accused on technical issues which are many.

Please visit the following link regarding unaccounted money and Sec.138

https://www.lawweb.in/2013/03/alleged-liability-to-repay-unaccounted.html
 

Thanks, Dr. Ramani, but why do the lower courts do not sgree with the judgements of the High Courts, unless it is the judgement of their own high Court, can you please enlighten, if there are any similar judgement from  the Punjab & Haryana Gigh Court at Chandigarh