Skip to main content

Legal liability of a stolen cheque or what happens when you fall into the cracks in a system

Who is responsible for a stolen cheque and the amount which the original customer whose cheque was duly deposited but he did not get?

As all nationalized banks are working under the control of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) they are expected to follow rules and regulations codified by the same regulatory authority. But if something unforeseen incident happens and if there is no co-ordination or understanding of co-operation between the banks, they are susceptible to legal confrontation.

This has happened in case of a stolen cheque which was deposited in one bank and was en-cashed by the person who stole it by producing it in the bank which had issued the cheque. A bank’s customer received a cheque which was deposited by him in the bank in which he has the account. But after the cheque was deposited it was stolen from that bank.

The person who stole the cheque went to the bank on which the cheque was drawn and en-cashed it and disappeared after getting the amount. Who is then responsible for the stolen cheque and the amount?

The said cheque is not of a small amount. It was issued to an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSECDL) in payment of Rs1, 58 736.

This was part of his total amount which he was to receive after retirement.

The person who stole the cheque received the amount but not the concerned employee Shripati Patil. He therefore demanded the amount from the bank to which he had deposited the cheque and it was after depositing it and receiving the due receipt, the cheque was stolen. Hence he should receive the amount. The bank had to pay the amount to Mr Patil who received it from Central Bank of India where he has the account in which he had deposited the cheque.

When the cheque was lost, the matter was informed to the police who circulated information about it to all banks in the area including Bank of Maharashtra on which the cheque was issued on behalf of MSEDCL. But before any such intimation, the stolen cheque was presented to the concerned branch of Bank of Maharashtra and the payment was made.

According to Bank of Maharashtra’s concerned officials the cheque was bearer and MSEDCL having account in the branch issues bearer cheques of such amounts  in view of immediate availability of the amount to its employees. MSEDCL has not confirmed that the cheque was bearer, on the contrary clarified that it was crossed.

As the dispute is whether the cheque was bearer or crossed, it was also pointed out that if the amount is over Rs50,000, identity of the person should be established by way of PAN card, etc. As this was not done it was the liability of Bank of Maharashtra to pay the amount to Central Bank which has paid the said amount to Mr Patil who is the legitimate receiver of the amount.

The Bank of Maharashtra has not yet responded positively. A legal notice has been issued on behalf of Central Bank of India with demand to pay the amount as the stolen cheque was passed without verification and identification.

Bank of Maharashtra has not yet replied but says that the matter is being considered by its legal department. Thus the issue of a stolen cheque, which is being en-cashed by its thief and liability to pay the real recipient of the amount and responsibility of identification before making payment of a cheque over a certain amount—all 
these matters which are important in banking transactions are now at stake and more so because the tussle is between the two nationalized banks’ branches at Kolhapur in southern Maharashtra.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/legal-liability-of-a-stolen-cheque/29755.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil