Know Your Rights!!

  A Chandigarh Court reminded that just signing a cheque doesn’t automatically mean someone is guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it bounces. This interesting case involves a man named Bal Krishan, who was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant, Rajesh Chauhan, said Bal Krishan was supposed to deliver a property to him. When that didn’t happen, Bal allegedly gave him a cheque to return the money. But when Rajesh presented the cheque at the bank, it bounced. Naturally, Rajesh filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with bounced cheques. Now, Rajesh’s argument was straightforward. He said, that since Bal had signed the cheque, the law assumes it was issued to pay back a valid debt. But Bal’s lawyer told a completely different story. According to him, there was no property deal, no money owed, and no agreement of any kind. He said the cheque in question was a blank cheque Bal ...

The case of Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India And Another, 2024 (WRIT - C No. - 8197 of 2024), Allahabad High Court highlights the legal rights of a nominee under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the claims of legal heirs under succession laws. After the petitioner’s mother passed away in 2020, the petitioner, the nominee in all her Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in the Bank of Baroda, asked the bank to release the funds. The bank refused, citing succession issues, even though Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act gives nominees the right to receive such funds after the depositor’s death. The Reserve Bank of India’s Circular No.: RBI 2004-05/490 of June 9, 2005, further directs banks to release funds to nominees without insisting on documents like succession certificates, provided all formalities are completed. Importantly, the Supreme Court, in Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar (2010) , clarified that being a nominee doesn’t make you the owner of the money....