Kiran Kumar (Lawyer) 18 October 2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as
Anil Sachar & Anr. v/s M/s Shree Nath Spinners P. Ltd. & Ors. has held that
"if the cheque is given towards any liability or debt which might have been incurred even by someone else, the person who is a drawer of the cheque can be made liable u/s 138 of the Act"
there have been various queries in this regard on LCI, so this latest judgment will clear the issue.
R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Thats true, guarrantor is stuck. There are 3 types of possible liabilities..
1. A issues to B for his own liability: S.138 applicable.
2. A issues to B for C's liability towards B: S.138 is applicable.
3. A issues to B for A's liability to C: ???
Kind of B being agent of C collecting cheques in his own name. Please provide your valuable inputs on Sr#3 above.
Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Dear Friends
Read full judgement on this
R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 19 October 2011
Mr Nadeem, That fits into Pt#2 above in my submission, which is well settled. What about Pt#3. In pT#3, A issues a cheque in Favour of B for C's outstanding, that means there is no valid transaction between A and B. B is just claiming that he is the agent of C while collecting the cheque in own name (B's Name). I have come across two such cases, contract law, agency law, all are in favor of accused but if any one has any views please let us share.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
