Cheque bounce case

1. "IF" loaned /advanced amount was duly given via Cheque /Bank Transfer, THEN appropriate amount debit confirmation certificate of complainant's Bank would be sufficient to constitute "legally enforceable debt /liability" of accused, alongwith other relevant witnesses and/or documentary evidences.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

The complaint case is already stated to have been filed under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrucments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheque, which is to be contested by accused.

What is the relevance of "Promissiory Note" with dishounered cheque complaint?

The burden of proof in any negotiable instrument like cheque is always with the drawer, and he has to establish that the cheque was not supported by any consideration.  Ultimately the case has to be handled by a professional and he will guide you in legal aspects after studying the facts and available documentary proof.  The chances of getting a favourable verdict in favor of the payee. are more if it is a bonafide transaction.

Originally posted by : Santfff Santfff
	what is the time period to decide(approximately) by court suit filed under NIA?

THIS will remain uncertain, more so specifically in the Indian Judiciary system.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.

Originally posted by : jayaprakash m
	accused given a cheque to the complainant later the cheque returned the bank with memo ie the signature not match, in this case sec.420 IPC attracted or not

1. IPC 420 would be attracted PROVIDED the "signature mismatch" is proved to be a deliberate instance (one of them being that accused used this tactics in earlier events too)

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

@Jayaprakash m:  Once a member posts a query, another member should not post another query in the post of the original queriest as a matter of discipline and to confine a query to one subject alone.

(If the cheque is returned with such reason first issue notice as per laid down procedure and then depending on his response, you can take a stand.  When cheques are sent by post to the payee or through some other mode, it is absolutely not possible to verify the signature of a drawer or his powers.  According to my knowledge, the matter is more serious that the malafides are present right from signing the cheque in a different manner.  If the cheque according to the drawer is lost or misplaced, he must have countermanded payment, and then the drawee bank reason for return must be "Cheque reported lost" but in this particular case, the reason was "Signature differs".  The reasons may be genuine also, as some bankers do not honour cheques even when there is a slight deviation from the decade-old opening form signature, hence the reply to the notice has to be considered before filing a case.   Issuing Notice is also mandatory.