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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more