Skip to main content

Some more ambiguities with bounced cheques settled by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided on two important questions relating to bounced cheques last week. Resolving the apparent conflict in views between high courts and different benches of the Supreme Court, a larger bench of the apex court laid down that (i) a complaint about a bounced cheque can be filed by a power of attorney holder, and (ii) the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint if he had witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possesses due knowledge regarding the transactions.

The court was deciding two appeals against the judgments of the Bombay and Andhra Pradesh high courts. The Mumbai case, A C Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, started when a firm launched a scheme of investment and collected amounts from various persons in the form of loans. It, then, issued post-dated cheques in the managing director's personal capacity. The cheques were dishonoured leading to criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The complaint was filed by a person on behalf of several others. The MD moved courts for quashing the complaint, but without success. The Andhra case was similar. The main issue was whether a power of attorney holder could file a complaint. The Supreme Court said yes, and referred all such cases back to the courts where they came from to decide on them, according to the facts in each case.

The second issue settled in the judgment, Escorts Ltd vs Rama Mukherjee, was whether the court within whose jurisdiction the bounced cheque was presented had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court stated that a complaint could be filed in any of the jurisdictions where transactions took place, including the place of issue and the place of dishonour.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more