Guest Article : POPULAR QUESTION AND ANSWERS UNDER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881
POPULAR QUESTION AND ANSWERS UNDER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881
1. Is wife is responsible for the Cheque issued by Husband if Couples hold Joint Account
Under the Recent Judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court disposing petition . The Wife can not held responsible for the Cheque issued by the Husband if the Joint Account is held by both husband and wife. Section 138 of NI Act stating that she was accused of cheque dishnoured merely her husband signed the cheque on their Joint Account.
2.Signature by the Accused on a cheque to be Certified by FSL or by Bank
In a Cheque bounce Case if the Accused is disputing the signature on the cheque and contended that it is not his signature under that circumstances The Hon’ble Court relay on the Certificate issued by the Bank on the signature of the Accused by summoning the banker to compare the signature from the bank could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque. There is no necessity to obtain certificate from FSL in respect of signature of the accused on cheque. Only Banker Certificate is sufficient. This was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in recent Judgement in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another in the year 2024.
3.If the cheque is presented for full amount without endorsing part payment made by the Borrower is Valid.
Under the NI Act 1881 if the complainant presented the cheque for full amount without considering the payment is already made by the accused. In a situation if the accused paid part amount to the complainant not providing the cheque for revised amount if the complainant present the cheque through his banker for the higher value is not valid. There is no legally enforceable debt is there as on the day of presentation of cheque . The complainant has to make an endorsement from the bank for the lessor amount. Other wise revision petition will be dismissed by Hon’ court. This point was stated in recent judgement in the case of Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others.
4.If Cheque is given by the Accused as a security cheque can accused is liable for security cheques:
If the Accused issued a cheque to the complainant for security purpose is dishonoured after depositing for collection and if it comes back due to insufficient funds the accused is held liable under the N I Act 1881. This was stated in a judgement by Delhi High Court in the case of Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand.
5.is 20% of Deposit to the Court is compulsory in case of Appeal filed by the accused who has been convicted for the offense U/s 138 of NI Act for fine and compensation.
Section 148 of NI Act 1881 normally appellate court will be justified in imposing to deposit 20% to the Hon’ble court whenever an appeal is preferred by the accused in the appellate Court. If the Appellate Court is satisfied such condition will amount of depravation of right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically stated in the appeal and recorded in appeal. The appellate Court comes to the conclusion that in an exceptional case the reasons for coming to concussion to be recorded. The Appellate Court can admit the petition without obtaining 20% of fine or compensation from the accused who has convicted by the lower Court. This was stated in the Appeal case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs M.P.State Industrial Develelopment Corporation Ltd & Ors by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
6. In NI Act 1881 the complainant missed to include partnership firm name and file case against the Individual Partners is Appeal is Valid
If the complainant while issuing legal notice and filing PCR he has not included the partnership firm as party and he makes only the individual partners as a party in the Cheque bounce in cheque bounce case. Since the complainant has not made the partnership firm as a party he can not make individual partners responsible for the firm since no loan is taken by the accused partners in their individual capacity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disposed criminal Appeal No.767 of 2022 by setting aside the order of lower court of conviction.
7.Is Demand Notice sent by the Complainant to the Accused Via Email or WhatsApp is Valid in NI Act 1881
The Allahabad High Court had held that the statutory notice sent by the complainant to the accused via Email/WhatsApp is valid under section 138 of the NI for the instrument of cheque . this is the valid notice sent to the drawer and it is fulfils the requirement of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act.
8.Is Incomplete Signature of the Accused would constitute an offense Under section 138 of the NI Act
The Accused signs the incomplete signature for the purpose of cheating to the complainant handover the cheque and if that cheque is presented for payment and got dishonoured will be constitute an offense U/s 138 of NI Act . In a Judgement of J & K & L High Court while disposing petition in the appeal filed by Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat and another.
