Skip to main content

Dishonoured cheque in void contract not legally enforceable

In  R.Parimala Bai v. Bhaskar Narasimhiah, the complaint was filed with respect to dishonour of a cheque issued for returning the amount collected by the accused as consideration for securing a job . The complainant alleged that he had paid a sum of ten lakhs rupees to the accused on his promise that he will secure job for the son of the complainant at HAL Factory. When the promise was not kept, the complainant demanded the amount back, and a cheque for rupees ten lakhs was issued by the accused, which got dishonoured for lack of sufficient funds, leading to filing of the complaint.

The accused opposed the complaint referring to judgments of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh v. Laxmi Narayain and Kuju Collieries Ltd v. Jharkhand Mines Ltd., which held that Sec. 138 NI Act was not attracted for dishonour of a cheque issued for recovery of bribe paid for securing job.

The High Court of Karnataka agreed with the arguments of the accused, and held that there was no legally enforceable debt as the underlying contract was void.  If an illegal consideration is relied upon by the complainant himself, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be raised in the initial stages also. It is a well established principle of criminal law jurisprudence that, if on plain and meaningful reading of the FIR, the allegations made in the complaint or in the FIR do not constitute any offence or under any penal law for the time being in force, the continuation of such prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more