sunay D. S (BAL, LLB) 20 October 2011

NI act

Dear Advocate friends...

My Question is regarding to the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ...

problem here is before issuing of the cheque by the Accused to the Complainant the bank had closed the account of the accused. The same was not with in the knowledge of the accused , in the mean time if the complainant produces the cheque to his banker the drawer bank returned back the cheqe with a endorsement that "Account closed " will this attracts the offence under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act ?

kindly suggest me with appropriate citations in this regard

Regards

Sunay D S

Advocate

Reply Follow

12 Replies

kumar t v s (advocate) 20 October 2011

What about the notice after return of cheque?????

Was the stand taken in the reply??????

RAKESH PIPRODIA (ADVOCATE) 21 October 2011

YES, this attracts the offence under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act

Natwar raj Purohit (manager) 21 October 2011

138 ni act is attracts if a/c holder is no care of self a/c and issued chaque. a/c closed is not laibilities of complaintant.

sunay D. S (BAL, LLB) 21 October 2011

The accused is not replied for our legal notice .... can you plz post any citations

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com) 21 October 2011

Dear Sunny

anil kumar sawhney v/s Gulshan Rai, 1994 (1) KLT111

JAPAHARI V/S PRIYA1993(2)KLT141

KRISHANA NAIR V/S JASEENATHA, 1998 (2) KLT388

sheela subbarao (Advocate) 21 October 2011

You haveno escape. If you are sure of the debt under the cheque issued by you. It is better you get it settled amicably. Issue of cheque is presumed to be issued for a cheque. Under the Act, penalty can be doubled with imprisonment.

kranthi (retainer advocate) 21 October 2011

yes u can file case by giving the leagl notice its not necessary he replay or not

Dharmesh Manjeshwar (Advocate/Lawyer) 21 October 2011

Yes .... Sec - 138 N. I. Act will be attracted even if reason for dishonour of the cheque is given as '' account closed ''

V R SHROFF (Sr. ADVOCATE Bombay High Court Mob: 9892432152) 22 October 2011

accuse is liable even if bank a/c closed , this attracts the offence under section 138 n i act. Accused get defence of a/c closed w/o his knowledge, but is rare. On recd notice, accused has to pay in that case.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 22 October 2011

Accused has many defense in any NI 138 case, it is not so simple to win.

Any case of cheque bounce (NI 138) can be won by the accused if diligently is perused from initial stage. It is a myth that once a cheque is bounced conviction is imminent .

The complainant has to pass many many and many legal hurdles to achieve this.

Accused suffer only due to guilt complex and initial lethargy .

sunay D. S (BAL, LLB) 22 October 2011

Thanks to one and all who advised me

RAKESH PIPRODIA (ADVOCATE) 24 October 2011

File a case in the proper jurisdiction court within 30 days from the service of the demand notice irrespective of the accussed reply or not

NI act

12 Replies

Leave a reply

Recent Topics

Related Threads

Popular Discussion

Browse by Category