This presentation talks about the various aspects of Dishonour of cheque under Negotiable Instrumenmts Act 1881.
The presentation has been prepared as a project work and from basic research and understanding of law.
It must not be taken as any guidance, advise or any advertising on any part.
Useful article on Negotiable instrument act 138 Arjun Randhir
very useful compilation on negotiable instrument act case 138. not for commercial purpose only for educational purpose.. help to lawyer, judge, or legal student
Useful article on Negotiable instrument act 138 Arjun Randhir
very useful compilation on negotiable instrument act case 138. not for commercial purpose only for educational purpose.. help to lawyer, judge, or legal student
Code of civil procedure 1908 pleading plaint written statementDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is pleading, rules of pleading. Plaint, its contents, when it can be amended. Written Statement, its contents, set off and counter claim.
OBJECTIVE
Liquidator is a person appointed by a Company or a Competent authority to manage the activities of winding up of the Company. Provisions pertaining to appointment of liquidator are stipulated under Chapter XX of Companies Act, 2013. The webinar covers the aspects of appointment of liquidator, types of liquidators, powers and duties of liquidator and judicial precedents.
OBJECTIVE
Compromise and arrangement is a form of Corporate Restructuring where company enters into an agreement with its creditors or members to reorganise the capital structure of the company. The webinar covers the aspects of statutory provisions pertaining to compromise and arrangement under Companies Act, 2013 in detail along with judicial precedents.
The obligation of a banker to honour his customer’s cheque is extinguished (not accepted or clear) on receipt of an order of the Court, known as the Garnishee order, issued under Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A court order instructing a garnishee (a bank) that funds held on behalf of a debtor (the judgement debtor) should not be released until directed by the court. The order may also instruct the bank to pay a given sum to the judgement creditor (the person to whom a debt is owed by the judgement debtor) from these funds.
If the debtor fails to pay the debt owned by him to his creditor, the latter may apply to the court for the issue of a garnshee order on the banker of his debtor.
The account of the customer with the banker, thus, becomes suspended and the banker is under an obligation not to make any payment thereof.
The creditor at whose request the order is issued is called the judgment creditor; the debtor whose money is frozen is called judgment debtor and the banker who is the debtor of the judgment debtor is called the Garnishee.
The Garnishee order is issued in two parts
The court directs the banker to stop payment out of the account of the judgement-debtor
ORDER NISHI
After the bank file his explanation, if any, the court may issue the final order, called ORDER ABSOLUTE
Code of civil procedure 1908 pleading plaint written statementDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is pleading, rules of pleading. Plaint, its contents, when it can be amended. Written Statement, its contents, set off and counter claim.
OBJECTIVE
Liquidator is a person appointed by a Company or a Competent authority to manage the activities of winding up of the Company. Provisions pertaining to appointment of liquidator are stipulated under Chapter XX of Companies Act, 2013. The webinar covers the aspects of appointment of liquidator, types of liquidators, powers and duties of liquidator and judicial precedents.
OBJECTIVE
Compromise and arrangement is a form of Corporate Restructuring where company enters into an agreement with its creditors or members to reorganise the capital structure of the company. The webinar covers the aspects of statutory provisions pertaining to compromise and arrangement under Companies Act, 2013 in detail along with judicial precedents.
The obligation of a banker to honour his customer’s cheque is extinguished (not accepted or clear) on receipt of an order of the Court, known as the Garnishee order, issued under Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A court order instructing a garnishee (a bank) that funds held on behalf of a debtor (the judgement debtor) should not be released until directed by the court. The order may also instruct the bank to pay a given sum to the judgement creditor (the person to whom a debt is owed by the judgement debtor) from these funds.
If the debtor fails to pay the debt owned by him to his creditor, the latter may apply to the court for the issue of a garnshee order on the banker of his debtor.
The account of the customer with the banker, thus, becomes suspended and the banker is under an obligation not to make any payment thereof.
The creditor at whose request the order is issued is called the judgment creditor; the debtor whose money is frozen is called judgment debtor and the banker who is the debtor of the judgment debtor is called the Garnishee.
The Garnishee order is issued in two parts
The court directs the banker to stop payment out of the account of the judgement-debtor
ORDER NISHI
After the bank file his explanation, if any, the court may issue the final order, called ORDER ABSOLUTE
A document or a piece of paper that guarantees payment of a certain amount of money to a specified person (payee) either immediately upon demand or at a predetermined period is known as a negotiable instrument. It is a document made up of a contract that ensures unconditional payment of money that can be paid now or later. In other words, any document that grants ownership over a quantum of money as well as can be transferred by delivery is addressed as a negotiable instrument. To govern the use of negotiable instruments in India, the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881 was defined. On March 1, 1881, the Act of 1881, came into force and extends to the whole of India. It is “An Act to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques.” The Negotiable Instrument Act consists of a total of 147 Sections that are spread over 17 chapters. As per the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881, no phrase appropriately defines ‘negotiable instrument’ whereas Section 13 of the Act states that “A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.”
Will secured creditor have priority over income-tax arrears? - V. K. SubramaniD Murali ☆
Will secured creditor have priority over income-tax arrears? - V. K. Subramani - Article published in Business Advisor, dated October 10, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
2. The following presentation is divided
into two parts:-
1.Definition of Dishonour of Cheque
under Section 138 The Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881
2.Recent Judgements and its effects
3. Section 138
Section 138 provides that Dishonour of Cheques may be for
certain reasons:-
1.Insuficiency of Funds or
2. that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from
that account by an agreement made with that bank
4. When cause of action arises?
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on a bank account maintained by
him.
2. The cheque should have been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability.
3. The cheque has been presented to the bank within the period of its
validity i.e. 3 months(as per RBI guidelines with effect from from 1 April
2012 validity is 3 months)
4. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of funds
insufficient or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid.
5. The payee makes a demand for the payment by giving a notice in
writing, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the
bank.
6. The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within
15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
7. Complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause-of-
action arises.
5. Bouncing of a cheque invites criminal prosecution under
section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Punishment for the offence under section 138 of NI Act
is imprisonment up to two years or fine which may
extend to twice the cheque amount or both.
The offence is bailable, compoundable and non-
cognizable.
PUNISHMENT-
6. Limitation
NIA is a legislation whereby the time
limit given must be strictly followed.
Any lapse in adhering to the schedule,
shall take away a cause of action
under section 138.
7. The time limits are:-
1. Cheque should be presented to the bank for
encashment within its validity period i.e. 3 months.
2. Within 30 days from the receipt of return memo
indicating reason of dishonour a notice should be sent
demanding the amount of dishonoured cheque to be
paid within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
8. 3. If the drawer does not pay the
amount of dishonoured cheque
within the grace period of 15 days,
a complaint thereafter should be
filed within one month in the
relevant court of Metropolitan
Magistrate /Judicial Magistrate
First Class [SEC 142(c)]
9. CHEQUE RETURN MEMO
Return Memo is the most important document while
filing a complaint u/sec 138 as this document by the bank
mentions the reason for dishonour.
10. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidyan
Balan (AIR 1999-7 SC-570)
In this case the apex court held regarding the
territorial jurisdiction as follows:-
The complaint can be filed at any of the place-
1.Where the cheque was drawn
2.Where the cheque was presented for
encashment
3.Where the cheque was returned unpaid by the
drawee bank
11. 4. Where notice was given to drawer of cheque
demanding payment and drawer of cheque failed
to make payment within 15 days of receipt of
notice.
Here each of these acts constituting offence
can be done at different places. Hence one of
the court exercising jurisdiction in one of the
these local areas can become the place of trial
for the offence under section 138 NIA.
The above is overruled in Dashrath case.
12. SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
(DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES)
• CASE-
DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD VS. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA (2014) 9 SCC 129
ISSUE:- TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
13. Before this judgment the legal position
was as follows –
• Let us say a party X based in Mumbai issued a
cheque to a party Y of Kolkata.
• The cheque was drawn on a bank of Mumbai.
• The cheque was presented by Y to his bank in
Kolkata. The cheque bounced.
• Y issued a notice to X demanding payment for
the bounced cheque. X did not pay.
• Y would file a complaint with the Magistrate at
Kolkata (though he also had the option of filing
at Mumbai).
14. After the judgment dated 1st August
2014, Y will have to necessarily come to
Mumbai to file the complaint.
The Supreme Court has made it
mandatory that the complaint related
to cheque bouncing must be filed only
where the drawee bank is located.
After the judgment
15. Reasoning of Judgement:-
Cause of action arises on fulfilling the conditions in
proviso (presentation of cheque within validity, notice
demanding payment and drawers failure to pay etc.)
Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant,
the jurisdiction of the court to try the offence shall be
determined by reference to the place where the
cheque is dishonoured.
The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of CrPC
applies to cases under Section 138 of the NIA 1881.
Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched
against drawer of the cheque only before the Court
within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place.
16. Impact of the Dashrath Rathod ‘s judgment:
1.Principle laid down by this judgment will be
prospective in operation.
2. In respect of pending cases:-
A. Cases in which trial has commenced: Cases in
which summoning and appearance of the accused
has taken place and recording of evidence has
commenced will continue at the same court.
B. Cases pending at the pre summoning stage:
Cases in which summons have not been issued will
be maintainable only at the place where the cheque
stands dishonored. Even though evidence is led on
affidavit or by oral statement, further proceedings
can not continue.
17. The court placed reliance on the judgement
in the following cases:-
(1)Harman Electronics (P) Ltd vs. National
Panasonic India (P) Ltd(2009) 1 SCC 720
(2) Ishar alloys steels vs. Jayaswal Neco Ltd
reported in (2001)3 SCC 609
18. M/s. Indus Airways Pvt Ltd. & Ors vs. M/s. Magnum
Aviation Pvt. Ltd.& Anr[2014 (4) SCALE 645]
ISSUE:-Whether the post-dated cheques issued
by the appellant(purchasers) as an advance
payment in respect of purchase orders could be
considered in discharge of legally enforceable
debt or other liability, and, if so, whether the
dishonour of such cheques amounts to an
offence under Sec138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) ?
19. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an
offence, if the cheque has been issued in
discharge of any debt or other liability.
The explanation in the Act leaves no manner
of doubt that to attract an offence under
Section 138, there should be legally
enforceable debt or other liability subsisting
on the date of drawal of the cheque.
The payment by cheque in the nature of
advance payment indicates that at the time
of drawal of cheque, there was no existing
liability.
20. H
E
L
D
• 1.If at the time of entering into a contract, it
is one of the conditions of the contract that
the purchaser has to pay the amount in
advance and there is breach of such
condition then purchaser may have to make
good the loss that might have occasioned to
the seller but that does not create a criminal
liability under Sec 138.
• 2.For a criminal liability to be made out
under Section 138, there should be legally
enforceable debt or other liability subsisting
on the date of drawal of the cheque.
21. 3. If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for
purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase
order is not carried to its logical conclusion either
because of its cancellation or otherwise and material
or goods for which purchase order was placed is not
supplied by the supplier the cheque cannot be said to
have been drawn for an existing debt or liability.
4.Taking in consideration the 2nd point since there is
no enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on
the date of drawal of the cheque because of non
supplying of the goods ,thus there cannot be a
liability under sec 138 of NIA 1881.
22. The court placed reliance on the judgement in
the following cases:-
(1) M/s. Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Deepak
Brothers and others; [1997 Cri. L.J. 1942 (AP)
(2) M/s. Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. and
another v. Mac Industries Ltd.; [1999 (1) CTC 6]
(3) Supply House, Represented by Managing Partner
v. Ullas, Proprietor Bright Agencies and another;
[2006 Cri. L.J. 4330 (Kerala)]
23. M/S. Econ Antri Ltd vs M/S. Rom Industries
Ltd. & Anr
( 2013 (10) Scale 555)
LIMITATION FOR COMPLAINT ON CHEQUE
DISHONOUR CLARIFIED – DAY OF EVENT TO
BE EXCLUDED
24. ISSUE:-Whether in a case where a period is fixed
within which a person must act, the day on which the
cause of action arises (i.e., receipt of notice under
Section 138 (b) of the NI Act intimating the drawer of
the fact of dishonour of the cheque) should also be
counted while computing the limit of 30 days?
HELD:-
1.The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of
calculating the period of one month, the period had
to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the
cause of action arose.
2.The court said that where a particular time was to
be computed from the happening of a certain event,
the day of the event was to be excluded.
25. KIRSHNA TEXPORT &CAPITAL MARKETS
LTD vs. ILA A. AGRAWAL & ORS.
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1220 OF 2009)
ISSUE:-Whether it is obligatory to issue
separate notices to the Directors in addition
to the Company, before initiating any
proceedings against them u/sec 138 NIA
1881?
26. The notice under Section 138 is required to be given to
“the drawer” of the cheque so as to give the drawer an
opportunity to make the payment and escape the
penal consequences.
No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as
being entitled to be issued such notice.
There is nothing in Section 138 which may even
remotely suggest issuance of notice to anyone other
than the drawer.
27. Section 141 states that if the person committing
an offence under Section 138 is a Company,
every director of such Company who was in
charge of and responsible to that Company for
conduct of its business shall also be deemed to
be guilty.
28. The reason for creating vicarious liability is plainly
that a juristic entity i.e. a Company would be run
by living persons who are in charge of its affairs
and who guide the actions of that Company and
that if such juristic entity is guilty, those who were
so responsible for its affairs and who guided
actions of such juristic entity must be held
responsible and ought to be proceeded against.
Section 141 again does not lay down any
requirement that in such case the directors must
individually be issued separate notices under
Section 138.
29. Somnath Sarkar vs. Utpal Basu Mallick &
Anr. [2013 (12) Scale 484]
ISSUE:-Whether the court can
award compensation of amount
which exceeds twice the amount
of the dishonoured cheque u/138
NIA 1881?
30. Facts:-
1) The Appellant issued a cheque in favour of the
Respondent for a sum of Rs. 69,500/- which was
dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
2) The Appellant was directed to pay Rs. 80,000 towards the
cheque amount-
(Principal of Rs. 69,500 ,Rs. 10,500 towards compensation and
Six months imprisonment)
3) The Appellant made the payment of Rs. 80,000 and filed a
further appeal to the Calcutta High Court to set aside the
imprisonment.
31. 4) The court imposed an additional payment of Rs.
69,500/- in lieu of the six months imprisonment.
5) Thus, as against the original cheque amount of
Rs. 69,500/- the Appellant was liable to the extent
of Rs. 1,49,500/- (original amount of Rs. 80,000
and the additional amount of Rs. 69,500).
6) The Appellant challenged this additional
imposition of Rs. 69,500/- in the Supreme Court.
32. HELD:-
1) The SC held that there was nothing wrong in a compensation of Rs.
80,000.
2) However, the payment of a further sum of Rs. 69,500/-, since
it exceeded the limit of double the cheque amount (i.e., twice Rs.
69,500) ,was held to be contrary to Section 138 of the NI Act
3) The Court said that the power to award compensation does not independently
exist under the NI Act, and such fine, in any event, cannot exceed twice the value of
the cheque amount as envisaged in the Act.