Skip to main content

Demand notice not invalid if amount demanded same as cheque amount

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 607-608 /2019, VIJAY GOPALA LOHAR vs PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, the Respondent issued two notices against bounced cheques and as no payment was made even after the receipt of the notices, he filed two complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the noticed, though the amount mentioned was same as the cheques under consideration, there was a reference to the loan amount which had to be returned by the appellant according to the notices. The Trial Court held  that the notices were defective on the ground that the notices mentioned loan amount and not the cheque amount and were therefore contrary to Section 138 of the NI Act.

As the High Court on appeal differed with the trial court and convicted the appellant, the said appellant came before the Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that clause(b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act to submit that the demand by the notice should be only for the cheque amount and not for any other amount more than the cheque amount, while a perusal of the notice would show that the notice refers to the loan amount and not the cheque amount and for this the appellant relied upon judgments in K.R. Indira vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana and Rahul Builders vs. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals.

The Supreme dismissing the judgments held that in the judgments referred to above the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act referred to loan amounts which were much higher than the cheque amounts. Whereas, in the instant case, the loan amount and the cheque amount is the same i.e., Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the above mentioned judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to this case.


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