Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Tvs Credit Services Limited vs Narayana Ramanna on 6 May, 2026

SCCH-26                                    C.C.No.20384/2024


KABC020639832024




 IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
     JUDGE, & A.C.J.M. AT :BENGALURU (SCCH-26)

          DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MAY 2026.

             PRESENT :      SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
                                   B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
                            XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
                                 BENGALURU.
   1. Sl. No. of the Case   C.C.No.20384 of 2024

   2. Name of the           TVS Credit Services Limited,
      Complainant           Having its registered office at
                            Chaitnya No.12,
                            Khader Nawaz Khan Road,
                            Nungambakkam,
                            Chennai-600006,
                            and Regional office at
                            No.1613/31,
                            Vishnupriya Tower,
                            KBG Extension, MKK Road,
                            Nagappa Block,
                            Devaiah Park,
                            Bangalore-560 021.
                            Represented by its
                            Authorized Signatory,
                            Mrs. Kusuma Pavan Chokira,
                            Area Legal Manager and PA Holder
                            of the complainant,
                            Aged 33 years,
                            R/o Bangalore.
                            (By Sri. Subramanya K.-
                                     Advocate)
 SCCH-26                        2              C.C.No.20384/2024


   3. Name of the            Narayana Ramanna,
      Accused                S/o Ramanna,
                             Taremaradapalya,
                             Kunigal Taluk,
                             BettahalliMutt B.O.,
                             Tumkur.

                             (By Sri. Y.D. Shivashankara-
                                      Advocate)

   4. The offence            U/s.138 of the Negotiable
      complained of          Instruments Act
   5. Opinion of the         Accused found guilty
      judge
                         -: JUDGMENT :-

  The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section

200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that the accused

has committed an offence punishable U/Section 25 of the

Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/w section .138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (In short N.I.Act).

  2.     The brief facts of the complainant's case are as

under:

  The complainant is a non-banking financial company

registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956,

having its registered office at Chennai and regional office at

Bengaluru.    On the request and representation of accused

and upon agreeing to various written terms, conditions,
 SCCH-26                            3             C.C.No.20384/2024


covenants     and    execution    of   agreement/loan    account

No.KA3110LN0000698, dated: 20.10.2022, complainant had

granted the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused under the

product LN.     As per the terms and conditions of the said

facility, the accused has agreed to pay the loan amount with

interest by way of monthly installments as per the

repayment     schedule      besides    other   charges   to    the

complainant. The accused has opted for NACH/ECS facility

of the complainant to repay the loan amount and he has

issued the mandate in favour of complainant. Accordingly

the   accused       has   also   issued   NACH/ECS       standing

instructions to his bank to debit EMI/outstanding dues/part

payment of Rs.1,37,325/- towards repayment of partial loan

as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to his bank

IDBI Bank Ltd., IFSC Code/MICR-IBKL0001508, from his

bank account bearing No.1508104000049434 corresponding

to credit the said amount to the account of the complainant

bank HDFC Bank situated at Hennur Road Branch,

Bangalore.
 SCCH-26                          4               C.C.No.20384/2024


  3. The complainant after obtaining NACH/ECS mandate

which is authenticated by the accused and complainant

bank, sent the said mandate to NPCL (National Payment

Corporation Ltd.) for registration to avail NACH/ECS facility.

After receiving the said mandate from NPCL, it has sent the

mandate scanned image and relevant data to the accused

bank and same is accepted by the accused bank to debit the

said amount directly into the account of complainant's bank

situated at Hennur Road Branch on the due date, the

UMRN-IBKL0000000007405164. The accused has failed to

make the payment inspite of several requests and reminders

and   as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to

maintain adequate balance in his account.            Hence, the

NACH/ECS      auto   debit   mandate      represented    by    the

complainant to the accused bank account in respect of

EMI/outstanding      dues/part       payment   dated:20.03.2024

amounting to Rs.1,37,325/- was returned with the memo as

"Balance Insufficient" on 22.03.2024 from the bank account

of the accused. The intimation of dishonour electronic funds

transfer has been received by the complainant's bank.
 SCCH-26                        5             C.C.No.20384/2024


    4.     The complainant has issued legal notice to the

accused on 27.03.2024 through RPAD by demanding the

accused to pay the amount against the said electronic funds

transfer within 15 days from the receipt of notice.       The

postal acknowledgment shows that, notice delivered on

08.04.2024.    In spite it, the accused failed to comply the

demands made in the notice. Hence, this complaint.

     5.     After perusing the contents of the complaint and

documents, this court has taken cognizance of offence

punishable u/s 138 of NI act and registered PCR. Thereafter,

this court has recorded the sworn statement of Legal

Manager and Power of Attorney Holder of complainant

company namely Mrs. Kusuma Pavan Chokira as PW.1 and

got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.       Since, the

complainant has made-out prima-facie case to proceed

against the accused, the case has been registered in

Criminal Register No.III and issued summons to the

accused.    In response to the summons, the accused        has

appeared before the court through his counsel and he was

enlarged on bail. Subsequently, plea was recorded and the
 SCCH-26                          6               C.C.No.20384/2024


substance of the accused was read over and explained to

him and he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

and further, the Statement of the accused U/Sec.351 of

BNSS      was   recorded   and   incriminating   circumstances

appeared in the evidence against the accused was read over

to the accused and he has denied all incriminating

circumstance appeared in the evidence and chosen to lead

defence evidence.

     6.    In view of the principle lead down by the Hon'ble

Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association & others

V/s Union of India and others, after appearance of accused

the sworn statement of the Power of Attorney Holder of the

complainant is treated as evidence of complainant as PW-1

and the documents produced by the complainant at the time

of sworn statement are considered as a document of the

complainant as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. As per the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank

Association & others V/s Union of India and others, the

accused has filed application u/s 145 (2) of N.I.Act seeking

permission to cross examination of PW-1.              Inspite of
 SCCH-26                          7              C.C.No.20384/2024


sufficient opportunity, P.W.1 has not been cross-examined

from the side of accused and cross of P.W.1 is taken as nil.

When the case was posted for defence evidence, at this

stage, the complainant and accused have filed joint memo

and prayed to pass Judgment on the basis of terms and

conditions enumerated in the joint memo.

     7. Heard arguments of both side and perused the

materials.

     8. From the above facts of the case, the points that

arise for my consideration are: -

            1. Whether the accused is liable to be
               convicted in terms of joint memo
               dated:06.05.2026?
            2. What Order?
     9. My findings to the above points are as under :

                 Point No.1 : - In the Affirmative.
                Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the
                              Following: -

                       :: R E A S O N S ::
      10.     Point No.1: - This court has already issued a

process to the accused and in response to it, accused ap-

peared and proceed with the trial, as such there is no need
 SCCH-26                         8              C.C.No.20384/2024


to go back again to reconsider the compliance of provisions

of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.


     11. To attract the offence U/sec 25 (1) of the payment

and Settlement Systems Act,2007, makes it an offense for a

person to initiate an electronic funds transfer that is dishon-

oured due to insufficient funds or exceeding the pre- ar-

ranged credit limit in their account. The Provision applies

only when the transfer is for the payment of a debt or liabil-

ity and was initiated according to the system provider's

guidelines, as outlined in the provisos to the section. Section

25(5) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, clears

that the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instru-

ments Act 1881 shall apply to the dishonour of electronic

funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Chap-

ter XVII of N.I.Act, deals with Of Penalties in case of Dishon-

our of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the Ac-

counts, which was having section 138 to 148. Accordingly

the complainant is required to prove the existence of legally

enforceable debt for which electronic transfer in question

was agreed. As per to the section 139 of Negotiable Instru-
 SCCH-26                          9              C.C.No.20384/2024


ment Act, there is presumption in favour of complainant, as

to the existence of the legally enforceable debt or other liabil-

ity. But the said presumption is rebuttable.

    12. The complainant in support of his case examined its

Power of Attorney holder Smt. Kusuma Pawan Chokira as

PW.1. In her evidence affidavit she has reiterated the

complaint averments and got marked          the documents as

Ex.P.1 to 7. When the matter was posted for defence

evidence, the complainant and the accused have filed joint

memo and prayed to pass the judgment on the basis of

terms and conditions enumerated in the joint memo.            The

accused has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- in six

installments to the complainant company i.e., Rs.5,000/- on

06.05.2026 by way of cash, Rs.5,000/- on 20-06-2026,

Rs.10,000/- on 20-07-2026, Rs.10,000/- on 20-08-2026,

Rs.10,000/- on 20-09-2026, Rs.10,000/- on 20-10-2026.

Further the accused has undertaken to honour the six

installments without fail and in case of default to clear the

installments, the complainant shall take the appropriate

legal action against the accused.
 SCCH-26                         10              C.C.No.20384/2024


     13. The complainant has agreed to receive the above

mentioned amount from the accused as full and final

settlement of the amount. The above payment shall be paid

on their respective date/time, failing which the complainant

will reserve all his rights to further proceed with the case

and take suitable action against the accused, in accordance

with law. Both the parties to the above case have agreed to

the terms and conditions and have on their own free will and

voilition signed this joint memo.

     14. Therefore, when the accused has admitted liability

to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant acknowledged

through this joint memo and         today, the complainant has

received the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the accused, hence

the court opinion that to the extent of Rs.45,000/-, accused

is liable to be convicted. As such, I answer point No.1 in the

Affirmative.

     15. Point No.2: In the light of the above discussed facts

and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the

following:
 SCCH-26                            11               C.C.No.20384/2024


                             ORDER

Acting under Section 278[2] of BNSS, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act R/w. Sec.25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand) as stated in the joint memo. If the said amount is deposited, same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.

The joint memo filed by both parties dated:06.05.2026 shall part and parcel of the record/judgment.

In default, accused shall undergo SI for a period of six months.

It is further made it clear that if the accused opt to undergo imprisonment, it does not absolve him from liability of paying compensation to the complainant.

Office is hereby directed to supply free certified copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.

SCCH-26 12 C.C.No.20384/2024

The bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th May 2026) (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.

::A N N E X U R E::

I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Smt. Kusuma Pavan Chokira. II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Notarized copy of Power of Attorney.
           Ex.P.2        : NACH report.
           Ex.P.3     & : Office copy of legal notice with
           4              translated copy.
           Ex.P.5     & : Postal receipts.
           6
           Ex.P.7        : Postal Track Consignment.
Ex.P.8 : Certificate U/Sec.63(4)(b) of BSA. III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
- NONE -
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
                                                Digitally signed by
                                   APPASAB      APPASAB RAMAPPA
                    - NIL -        RAMAPPA      NAIK
                                                Date: 2026.05.15
                                   NAIK         11:41:48 +0530

                                (APPASAB NAIK)
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.