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

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