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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more