Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (3.67 seconds)
N.B. Suresh vs N.R. Byregowda on 6 February, 2016 cites

Goaplast Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza & Anr on 7 March, 2003

16. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has relied citation reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 it is with respect to stop payment instruction given by the accused drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of N.I. Act is attracted in para No.9 of the said citation ' Ordinarily in cheque bouncing cases, what the court have to consider is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the Act, with respect to the facts of the present case, it must be clarified that contrary to the trail Court's finding, 15 C.C. 2175/2014 Section 138 of the Act can indeed be attracted when a cheque is dishonoured on account of 'stop payment' instructions sent by the accused to his bank in respect of a post dated cheque, irrespective of insufficiency of funds in the account, this position was clarified by this Court in Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D'Souza (2003) 3 SCC 232 : (AIR 2003 SC 2035), wherein it was held: Chapter XVII containing Section 138 to 142 was introduced in the Act by Act 66 of 1988 with the object of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operation and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. These provisions were intended to discourage people from not honouring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. The Court should lean in favour of an interpretation which serves the object of the statute. A post-dated cheque will lose its credibility and acceptability if its payment can be stopped routinely. The purpose of a post-dated cheque is to provide some accommodation to the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the drawer of the cheque should not be allowed to abuse the accommodation given to him by a creditor by way of acceptance of a post-dated cheque. In view of Section 139, it has to be presumed that a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. Therefore, the said citation is very much applicable to the present case in hand and another citation reported 2001 (4) Kar. L.J. 122 as per the Section 138 and 140 blank cheque issue of issuing of cheque duly signed by maker thereof authorizing payee to fill up amount agreed upon will not invalidate cheque as such 16 C.C. 2175/2014 practice is recognized and permitted by law and also another citation reported in (1996) 2 SCC 739 Section 138 of N.I. Act drawer of the cheque having insufficient funds to his credit, held, cannot escape liability issuance of stop payment instruction to his banker. Further, when he failed to make payment within 15 days from the date receipt of the notice under Clause (c) of the proviso, the statutory presumption of dishonest intention is satisfied. However, if the drawer also, before presentation of the cheque, issue notice to the payee not to present the same for encashment. But, in this case the accused knowing fully that, when the complainant has presented the cheque and after date mentioned in Ex.P1 first time and which was returned on 18.03.2013 with an endorsement as stop payment of the drawer of the said fact has been orally informed by the complainant to the accused and again as per the request made by the accused, he has 2nd time presented and again which was returned on 04.04.2013 with an endorsement as stop payment and in instant case also when the accused came to know that, Ex.P1 was endorsed as per Ex.P2, he knowingly about endorsement under Ex.P2 prior to presentation of the said cheque, but he has not issued any notice to the complainant restrained him not present for it presentation. Therefore, the said citation is applicable to the present case in hand and another citation reported in (1998) 3 SCC 249 said citation is with respect to stop payment instruction given by the accused and in this case also he has not issued instruction to the complainant to 17 C.C. 2175/2014 not presented the cheque for encashment. Therefore, the said citation is applicable to the present case in hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 235 - A Kumar - Full Document
1