LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Kumar. K.K. (legal consultant)     15 February 2012

S. 138 n.i. act

I request the benign members to enlight me the point of servicing of notice is complied or not in case of the statutory notice sent to the accused is returned with the postal endorsement  "Left". In my case I have no knowledge of the statutory notice sent to me as I have vacated my residence till I receive the court summons which has been sent to my latest address.



Learning

 15 Replies

Arvind Singh Chauhan (advocate)     15 February 2012

SORRY FOR INCONVENIENCE!

DUE TO SOME ISSUES WE ARE NOT REPLYING TO ANY QUERY

1 Like

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     15 February 2012

that will be valid defense.

virupanagouda (Senior Lawyer)     16 February 2012

"A: is the plaintiff, filed partition suit against "B" who is the elder brother of her father. now "B" took the plea of adverse possession as he is in possession more than 12 years.

my question is, whether the plea of adverse possession can be claimed in partition suit,

plea of adverse possession can be maintainable against the brother.

pls inform me if u have any citations,

urs,

vnpatil_adv@rediffmail.com or send sms to 09480062120

virupanagouda (Senior Lawyer)     16 February 2012

Dear friends suggest me on this fact,

A & B got divorced, now they want to join again without remarriage,

should I challange the decree?

should I file an appeal?

or what else?

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     16 February 2012

NI Act is very clear, within 15 Days of receipt of notice.....

 

The point is

what do you mean by vacating and proof ?

 

How the court got your new address...

 

Who leaves at your old address presently..

 

Did you receive notice at your new address also..

 

Can you prove that you could not have received the notice at your old address ?

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     17 February 2012

 

You can come out of cheque bounce problems.

 

There is presumption in law but easy and simple to rebut it.

 

I pose a simple question to all who are for holder of bounced cheque.

How you can prove this cheque was issued to the accused and it has come form that the bank only.

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     17 February 2012

JSDN,  You are very aggressively with accused. I agree with you that it is difficult to prove but still you are not present everywhere and accused gets convicted. Remember one thing there are dishonest drawers also, full of them, and they deserve punishment.

 

As far as proving that the cheque is of accused, signature admittance is sufficient, and as far as Bank is concerned, dishonor slip is sufficient evidence. If accused denies the signature, Bank can be summoned.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     19 February 2012

I am telling what are the possiblities.

Accused will not and should not admit signature.

Complainant as a rule mis in pleadings and hence subsquent deposition of bank has no significance.

Please note the finer points for any defense for cheque bounce.

1) Cheque should be from the account of the accused.

2) It should have been issued to him by the bank.

3) It is bounced by his bank and not by collecting bank.

TRY TO SEARCH ANSWERS AND IN CROSS ALL CAN BE DEMOLISHED.

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     19 February 2012

Pt#3 is very valid and it has no cause of action/fault of drawer if dishonored by colecting bank itself.

1. Signature admittance is sufficient for Pt#1&#2, mere denial of signature by accused will not help, it is the his bank who has to state that signature's on the instrument are not that of accused, means accused has to prove that signature are not his.

 

But in general: The accused can be helped to come out of this mess, we support only in case accused is honest and gets trapped by complainant.

 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     19 February 2012

Go to actual seneorio of transections than you will realise the impotrance of point three.

And how can you say who is honest and who is not.

Normally it takes 3 to 5 years and if the matter goes to appeal / revision ten years so it can be assumed that the transection was real but being used by loan sharks and even banks have joined it .

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     28 February 2012

But then if no recourse is available can people be left to be duped.

 


Regards,
 
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     06 March 2012

Regarding the original querry , now SC and many HC s have fine tuned the provisions of service of notice and reciept of notice.

section b says of giving of notice but section c says after recipt on notice if payment not made than accused liable. Both conditions must be fufilled. One of the observation of SC in such case.

 

“14, It is one thing to stay that sending of a notice
is one of the ingredients for maintaining the
complaint but is another thing to say that
dishonour of a cheque by itself constitutes an
offence. For the purpose of proving its case that
the accused had committed an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
the ingredients thereof are required to be proved.
What would constitute an offence is stated in the
main provision. The proviso appended hereto,
however, imposes certain further conditions
which are required to be fulfilled before
cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the
ingredients for constitution of the offence laid
down in the provisos (a), (b) and (c) appended to
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are
intended to be applied in favour of the accused,
there cannot be any doubt that the receipt of a
notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of
action for filing a complaint. As it is only on
receipt of the notice the accused at his own peril
may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c)
of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be
read together. Issuance of notice would not by
16
itself give rise to a cause of action but
communication of the notice would.” (emphasis
supplied)
Thus, even though issuance of notice is necessary ingredient, as
observed by the Supreme Court issuance of notice would not itself give
rise to the cause of action but communication of notice would. 

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     07 March 2012

This is bad in law.

 

What if the party is avoiding service of notice.

 


Regards,
 
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     07 March 2012

This is bad in law.

 

What if the party is avoiding service of notice.

 


Regards,
 
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register