There is in our opinion no real or qualitative difference between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and another where the prosecution is deferred till the cheque presented again gets dishonoured for the second or successive time.
The argument that the holder takes advantage by not filing a prosecution against the drawer has not impressed us. Despite receipt of the notice by the respondent the payment was not arranged. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Such a decision to defer prosecution may be impelled by several considerations but more importantly it may be induced by an assurance which the drawer extends to the holder of the cheque that given some time the payment covered by the cheques would be arranged, in the process rendering a time consuming and generally expensive legal recourse unnecessary.
In Civil cases the evidence The court held that unless a law makes an exception, the principle of vicarious liability would not apply in the context of criminal liability.
In this case, a cheque of Rs. When the present appeal first came up for hearing before a bench comprising Markandey Katju and B. There are complete Dihonour of cheque supreme court of on college applications dedicated to race and ethnic background Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc.
The ruling in Bhaskaran was diluted in Harman Electronics Pvt. The Court clarified that nothing would prevent an aggrieved person from availing other remedies under the Indian Penal Code or the CrPC.
A bench of Justice A K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan once again made it clear that Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act,provides for drawing the presumption in favour of holder and a bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused.
In such a case the doctrine of purposive construction should be adopted. Relying on Section of the CrPC, the Court held that territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters, including under the Act, is determined solely by location of the commission of offence. Shamsher Singh Gogi are: There is, in our view, nothing either in Section or Section to curtail the said right of the payee, leave alone a forfeiture of the said right for no better reason than the failure of the holder of the cheque to institute prosecution against the drawer when the cause of action to do so had first arisen.
Post — Issuance of summons: You can direct your queries or comments to the authors 1 Somnath Sarkar v. Further, dishonour of a cheque could also have serious consequences for directors. The Court clarified that nothing would prevent an aggrieved person from availing other remedies under the Indian Penal Code or the CrPC.
The ruling in Bhaskaran was diluted in Harman Electronics Pvt. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. Where a payee was able to establish that the inducement for accepting a cheque which subsequently was dishonoured had occurred where he resides or transacts business, he will not have to suffer the travails of journeying to the place where the cheque had been dishonoured.
Then only he initiated proceedings under the Act. Pathak contents and which, in substance, has been accepted by the High Court, would lead to very anomalous results; and his arguments is that it is open to the Court to take into account the obvious aim and object of the statutory provision when attempting the task of construing its words.
ISSUE Acknowledging the fact that it had become commonplace for the courts to encounter a notice issued under Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act,from a place that had no connection with the accused or with any facet of the transaction, the Court stated that misemployment insofar as the choice of place of suing now calls for a stricter interpretation of the statute.
Though in process of interpretation right of an honest lender cannot be defeated as has happened in this case. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
If it appears that the obvious aim and object of the statutory provisions would be frustrated by accepting the literal construction suggested by the respondent, then it may be open to the Court to enquire whether an alternative construction which would serve the purpose of achieving the aim and object of the Act, is reasonably possible.
The decision gives three distinct reasons why that should be so. No complaint was, however, filed by the complainant despite failure of the accused to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque.(1) LAW HERALD (SC) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B.
Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. Second or successive dishonour of the cheque:New of Supreme Court Ruling The Supreme Court has overruled its own judgment regarding the law on bounced cheques.
The Supreme Court as well as high courts have been following the wrong judgment in several cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Jan 14, · The Hon`ble Supreme Court of India has now held that all the criminal matters relating to dishonour of cheques would only be entertained by the court where the cheque was dishonoured.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company 14 Jan Recently, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) decided certain important cases relating to the offence of dishonour of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, (“NI Act”).
Issues relating to prosecution and defence of cases relating to cheques are extremely important as very often companies have to consider expeditious. Print Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: Whether the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as “security” in the loan agreement is covered by Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, or not?
The agreement recorded that post-dated cheques towards payment. Aug 29, · The Supreme Court ("Court") has, in its recent decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1, held that in cases of dishonour of cheque, only those courts within whose territorial limits the drawee bank is situated would have the jurisdiction to try the case.Download