Skip to main content

Dishonour Of Cheque Issued For Discharge Of Later Liability Clearly Covered By Negotiable Instrument Act

In CRR No. 56 of 2010, Madan Tiwari vs Yashwant Kumar Sahu, respondent filed a complaint alleging that applicant, who was running an institution (Pleasant Health Welfare Foundation) at Dongargaon had appointed the complainant and 21 other persons on agreement basis. Complainant and other persons deposited some amount as per the agreement, with the institution. In the agreement it was mentioned that the amount so deposited would be refunded after completion of probation period of one year. It is the case of the complainant and other persons that after completion of probation period, they have not been regularized therefore, the complainant and others demanded for refund of the amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- from the applicant/institution.The applicant issued a cheque bearing for Rs. 3,16,000/- in favour of the complainant. The Respondent filed complaint and the trial court ordered conviction of the appellant who appealed against the said order and the said appeal was dismissed. Finally the appellant approached the High Court.

The High Court said that from the close scrutiny of witnesses' in the present case it is clear that the applicant had signed and given cheque to the complainant and he has not rebutted the presumption of Section 139 Negotiable Instrument Act, therefore not only debt, but the liability also calls for criminal proceedings under the act. The Court observed that in Indus Airways (P) Ltd. V. Magnum Aviation (P) Ltd., it has been clearly held that dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of later lilability is clearly covered by the NI Act. That the purport of the special law under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to ensure that the promise to pay is abided by the person so promising. The provision under Section 139 of the NI Act is that it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of NI Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.


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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more