Skip to main content

Every Cheque Bounce Is Not A Section 138 Matter!

 Ms Money: Cheque bounced?

Mr Banker: Madam, you can seek help by filing a suit under Section 138…


It is a widely accepted norm in India that if a cheque is dishonoured then the person can get relief through legal court proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As easy as it may sound, Section 138 is not a ‘Brahmāstra’ for all cheque bounce cases.

In the present case, the Bombay High Court did not provide relief in the cheque dishonour case. The judgement specifically states that “No doubt cheque is a negotiable instrument which is transferable and negotiable; the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn only when the pre-conditions are satisfied. The complainant unilaterally put dates on the cheques without the authority of the accused and even by not informing him. So, it amounts to material alterations. If it is so such negotiable instrument becomes void".

The complainant is one of the partners in a partnership firm (“the financier”) who is the appellant. In 2003, the financier gave a loan of Rs. 1 crore to the accused (“the developer”) so that he could pay the consideration to the owner of the property.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for repayment was entered between the two parties, wherein the developer had issued two cheques which were not complete in all respect (i.e. the cheques did not mention the name of the payee and were undated). The developer could not complete the construction of the building in time and by way of a civil suit has prayed for an extension of time for recovery of the amount by the financier based on the MoU. The two cheques were deposited by the financier in 2007, after filing the Civil Suit the developer against the financier, which was returned unpaid. Hence, the financier filed two complaints in the trial court which acquitted the developer. The conclusion drawn by the trial court is when the suit was pending how the developer can give authority to the financier to put the name of the payee and the date on the cheques. Hence the present appeals.

The High Court considered the reasoning given by the trial Court for concluding the acquittal. The material question was whether the financier was justified in putting the name of the payee and the date on the cheques.

The court observed that putting the name of the payee cannot be held to be objectionable for the reason that they were handed over to the financier only.

For putting the date on the cheques the court referred to section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which authorizes alteration in two contingencies: -

(a) If it is with the consent of the parties.

(b) Even if the party does not give consent if the alterations are done to carry out the common intention of the parties.

The court noted that neither of these contingencies exists to authorize the financier to put in dates on the cheques. The financier has not stated that those dates were put in as instructed by the developer. The circumstances suggest that there was a dispute filed in Civil Court by the developer for extension of the time and has not consented to the financier to deposit those cheques. The financier unilaterally put in dates on the cheques without the authority of the developer and even by not informing him. So, it amounts to material alterations which render such a negotiable instrument void. Hence prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be initiated in the case of M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1630 and 1631 of 2011, Bombay High Court)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more