Skip to main content

Dishonoured Cheque offence even if cheque issued for sale consideration not disclosed in sale deed

In Bhawish Chand Sharma v. Bawa Singh, the case of the complainant was that he had sold a property to the accused for an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs. The accused had paid Rs.15 lakhs in cash and for the balance consideration, the cheque was issued. On presentment, the cheque got dishonoured, and the complaint was filed when the accused failed to discharge the liability after the statutory notice.

The accused admitted that the sale consideration was Rs.20 lakhs, and stated that he had paid Rs.16 lakhs in cash. He put forth a defence that he had issued cheques for Rs.4 lakhs, but those cheques were returned by the complainant stating that he had no bank account. The accused further stated that he had paid the balance in cash and that a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs without writing the name of payee was handed over to the broker as security for discharging certain electricity dues on the property. According to the accused, that cheque was misutilized by the complainant to cause the dishonour.

The trial court noted that even though the complainant stated the sale consideration to be Rs.20 lakhs, the value reflected in the sale deed was just Rs.4 lakhs. On this count, and also by accepting the version of the accused, the trial court acquitted the accused.

On appeal the High Court held that the failure to disclose full sale consideration will not invalidate the transaction underlying the cheque, though it may attract other legal penalties and that offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted even if the cheque was issued in respect of sale consideration which was not disclosed in the sale deed. 

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