Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
John Abraham vs E.P.Poulose on 6 January, 2012 cites

Nepc Micon Limited And Others vs Magma Leasing Limited on 29 April, 1999

---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2012 Judgment The complainant is the appellant. The accused in his complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. When Ext.P1 cheque was presented for encashment it was returned with the endorsement 'account closed by the accused'. Thus holding that the dishonour of the cheque was on the ground of closure of the account and not on the ground of insufficiency of funds, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that right from NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 1952) the view taken by the courts was that the object of introducing Section 138 of the Act is to maintain commercial morality and that when a cheque is returned by the bank unpaid on the ground that the "account closed" it would mean that the cheque is returned unpaid on the ground that the "amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 392 - M B Shah - Full Document

V.Vijayakumar vs M.T.Vijayan on 27 September, 2010

Another decision on the point is Vijayakumar v. Vijayan M.T. (ILR 2010(4) Ker. 244). When the accused signs and issues cheque, it is his duty to see that when the cheque is presented within the time specified, it is honoured. When it is dishonoured on account of the act of the drawer of the cheque, then he is liable for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the ground mentioned by the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused is unsustainable. Accordingly, the finding to that effect is set aside.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - V K Mohanan - Full Document
1