EXPLAINATION GIVEN BELOW SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT,1881

Sir Section 25(3) of Contract Act deals with acknowleding a time
barred debt but  to bring that section into action a written
acknowledgement of  time barred debt is must. Issuance of
cheque for a time barred debt and its subsequent dishonour would not
attract  offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of NI Act
, there are catena of judgments with this aspect, as there is no
legally enforceable debt. But for initiation of civil action the period
of limitation is 3 years from the date of cheque.

Dear srinivas

Can you give the citation of the judgement. Pl.

Please give the citation, it will be very helpful to all of us gere.

A cheque issued for a time barred debt, not preceded by a valid
acknowledgment of debt before expiry of limitation from the date of
loan, on its dishonour, will not attract Section 138

S. Joseph Vs Devassia 2001 Cr.L.J 24 (Ker)

Gurdhari lal Rathi Vs. Ramaniyachari 1997 (2) Crimes 658 (AP)

S. Krishan Murthy Vs. A. R. Rajan 1996 Cr. LJ (Mad).

Thank you SrinivasJi.

 Dear Srinivas,

This citation is very helpful...

Thanx a lot fm all of us...

Rgds,

Surya

 Can a non banking finance company, which is mandatorily required to be registered with the RBI, carrying on the function of the borrowing and lending finance? It is a private limited company registered with the ROC. If there is no formal agreement for giving loan, and cheque bounces, will it be treated as legally enforceable debt? What is the definition of legally enorceable debt? Here is a company which itself is functioning without the authority of law. How can her loan be legally enforceable?

Does a magistratre have inherent power to change the order of his predecessor after three years? In a cheque bouncing case, one of the directors was not incuded as an accused in the complaint. When the only respondent died, the complainant filed a petition to include only one of the other other directors. Since he was not an accused in the original peitition, the magistrate rejected the request. The complainant did not file any appeal against this order. The complainant moved similar application after more than three years where the magistrate noted the earlier order of his predecessor yet allowed the petition to include the person as an accused. The funny thing is that the complainant had requested that the person should be asked to represent the company but the magistrate has said that he should be treated as an accused. What is the law?

 In a cheque bouncing case, magistrate has noted that the director had resigned and there are documents to prove this. Yet, he has passed an order that because the person was a director on the date of the transaction i.e. when the loan was given not when the cheque bounced, he should be treated as an accused. The loan was given two years before the cheque bounced and the person had resigned 1 year earlier. How can the date of transaction be relevant? In this way, all the directors who have resigned years ago will be treated as accused because they were directors when the monies were given. Date of transaction is the date on which cheque bounced or the date when the loan was given which may be years before the incident. Actually the relevant date should be when the notice period expires. Please clarify. How this new concept of date of transaction crops up?

We profess Hindu religion where adoption is an accepted form. In 1987, my wife and I adopted her sister's new born baby (just 2 months old) and a deed of adoption including an affidavit was executed but not registered. Is it a valid adoption? The adoption was formalized before the relatives, friends and neighbours and since then his schooling and passport etc. including domicile certificate show us as his parents. Is there any problem?

 Unless a debt is made unenforceable in law, every debt can be said as enforceable. Here, it seems the company is carrying on non banking finance activities w/o licence...and therefore, this seems to be a non-enforceable debt only...as of now. Precisely, to avoid RBI scrutiny only, they must not have executed any documents for this debt.

Citation: Shyam Gupta v. Sanjeev Bhargava:Del HC:CRL LP No. 86/2004 & Crl. A.No.659/2007 (2007)

Hi, I gave Rs 14 Lacs to a share broker firm by chq for investments in 2004 by chq in delhi . Till date i have not recd any payment or assurance . What can i do.to recover my money

regds.