Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
I.C.D.S. Ltd vs Beena Shabeer & Anr on 12 August, 2002
The Apex Court in
the above-mentioned judgment observed many previous Supreme
Court judgments to decide the instant case including
Indus Airways Private Limited (supra). In later judgment, the
Apex Court delved deeper into this issue and considered that in
cases of part payment, it is unjust to consider the date of issuance
of cheque for the purposes of Section-138 as the amount liable on
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:19168] (14 of 16) [CRLMP-2216/2018]
the date of issuance will be more than the amount liable on the
date of encashment of the cheque. This is unjust to the drawer
who made a part payment already by some other means. Hence
the court considered this submission and held that the date of
maturity of the cheque should be considered to decide on the debt
occurring under Section-138.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel on 11 October, 2022
17. A post-dated cheque is an instrument in which a future date
is written implying that the cheque could only be encashed on or
beyond that future date. Two important dates in cases of
dishonoured cheques are the date of issuance of cheque and the
date of maturity of cheque. Usually the debt or the liability
existing on both the dates is of the same amount. But in some
instances a part payment is made between the two date, which in
turn reduces the amount liable on the date of maturity. Regarding
this, the issue whether the offence of section-138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is made out from liability/debt existing on date of
issuance of cheque or date of maturity comes up. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, in case Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra)
decided that as to when Section-138 will be attracted in cases of
part-payment made after the cheque was issued but before the
cheque was encashed. The Court held that such a payment must
be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56.
M/S.Shree Daneshwari Traders vs Sanjay Jain on 21 August, 2019
(ii). M/s Shree Daneshwari Traders vs Sanjay Jain & Anr. reported
in (2019) 16 SCC 83.
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 April, 2022
12. Be that as it may. Whether or not the contract/s entered
into between the petitioners and the respondent company is a
valid contract or not and whether it gives rise to liability on breach
of condition of the contract, cannot be adjudicated at this stage
and needs to be examined and evaluated before the trial court as
while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., appreciation of
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:19168] (10 of 16) [CRLMP-2216/2018]
evidence is not desirable. Thus, this Court is not inclined to make
any observation on this aspect of the matter. I fortify this view
from the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022
SCC OnLine SC 513, wherein it was held as under:-
Salar Solvent Extractions Ltd. And ... vs South India Viscose Ltd. on 10 January, 1994
In Salar Solvent
Extractions Ltd. v. South India Viscose Ltd. : (1994) 3
Crimes 295 (Mad)., it has been held that only the dates which
the cheques bear are the relevant dates. A post dated cheque is
deemed to have been drawn on the date it bears.
Nepc Micon Limited And Others vs Magma Leasing Limited on 29 April, 1999
15. This Court in NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magna Leasing Ltd.6
held that the Courts must interpret Section 138 with
reference to the legislative intent to supress the mischief and
advance the remedy. The objective of the Act in general and
Section 138 specifically is to enhance the acceptability of
cheques and to inculcate faith in the efficacy of negotiable
instruments for the transaction of business. 7 Section 138
criminalises the dishonour of cheques. This is in addition to
the civil remedy that is available. Through the criminalisation
of the dishonour of cheques, the legislature intended to
prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of a negotiable
instrument.8 The interpretation of Section 138 must not
permit dishonesty of the drawee of the cheque as well. A
cheque is issued as security to provide the drawee of the
cheque with a leverage of using the cheque in case the
drawer fails to pay the debt in the future. Therefore, cheques
are issued and received as security with the contemplation
that a part or the full sum that is addressed in the cheque
may be paid before the cheque is encashed.