Skip to main content

Liability or debt must exist on the date cheque issued to attract NI Act

In RANCH MANAGER, PCA & RD BANK LTD. vs SURESH DAS,  the respondent had issued a blank cheque as security while availing loan from the Bank. It was filled on a later date by a clerk of the Bank.  Subsequently when the Bank presented for collection, that the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ in the account. Since the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured, the complainant – Bank had issued a notice on 20.12.2004. However, in spite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount nor had replied to the said notice. Subsequently, the complainant – Bank initiated proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque.  The said complain was rejected by the trial court.

On appeal, the High Court referring to Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited which was actually quoted by the Bank in support of their claim held that as clearly stated in the said judgment “If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, the Section is attracted and not otherwise.”  Held - It is proved that  as on the date of issuing the cheque, there was no legally recoverable debt which was due by the accused to the complainant – Bank. Exhibit P1 was a blank cheque which was issued for the sake of security and it is proved by the evidence of PW-1 the Bank Manager himself, that that it was filled on a later date by a clerk of the Bank.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more