Cheque Bounce: 138 NI Act will be Attracted even if the Dishonoured Cheque was issued as Security: SC

Recently, the Top Court observed that dishonor of a cheques issued as security will also be considered an offense u/s 138 of the NI Act (Negotiable Instruments Act).

According to a Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MR Shah, there can’t be a hard and fast rule that a cheque issued as security could never be presented by cheque drawee. 

It further said that such a contention will not be accepted if the debt hasn’t become recoverable and the security cheque has not matured to be presented or if the date of payment agreed upon has not arrived.

In the instant case, the High Court had placed reliance on Apex Court’s judgment in Sudhir Kr Bhalla vs Jagdish Chand and ruled that cheques issued as security will not attract an offense under the NI Act.

However, the Top Court disagreed and said that this Court has not made any categorical declaration that cheques issued as security can’t be presented for the realization of the amount under every circumstance.

While referring to the case at hand, the Bench noted that issues related to the cheque being issued and then alterations were made to it and the drawee of the cheque has filed a counter-complaint as well. 

Therefore, the High Court was incorrect in placing reliance on Sudhir Bhalla judgment. The Supreme Court referred to Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd and opined that cheques issued as security relating to a financial transaction can’t be considered as worthless pieces of paper under all circumstances.

Another interesting observation made by the Bench was that prior discharge of loan or an altered situation wherein the parties have come to an understanding can’t be a bar on presenting the security cheque. 

This order was passed by the Apex Court in Sripati Singh vs the State of Jharkhand.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the inference of having received the statutory notice of demand by a cheque drawer as mandated u.s 138 of the NI Act can be raised only if the notice is dispatched to the correct address.

Law Trend

Cheque Bounce | Sending Notice to Wrong Address Fails to Fulfil Mandatory Pre-condition For Filing Complaint U/s 138 NI Act: HC

 Law Trend

2 days ago

The J&K and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the inference of having received the statutory notice of demand by a cheque drawer as mandated u.s 138 of the NI Act can be raised only if the notice is dispatched to the correct address.

As per the Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, inference can’t be drawn if notice has been sent to the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque.

In this case, the petitioner had challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against him for offence u.s 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. He also challenged the Magistrate to take cognisance of the offence and to issue a process against the petitioner.

Before the court, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner and even the address mentioned was incorrect. It was further submitted that even though the petitioner lived in Delhi, the statutory notice was served on the wrong address in Jammu and as the demand notice has not been served, an offence u.s 138 of the Act is not made out

The pillion rider cannot be considered as either insurer or the insured and therefore, he is also third party so for as the liability of the insurer is concerned and as such the insurer cannot avoid his liability to pay the compensation on the ground that policy does not cover the risk of the pillion rider.16-Nov-2019

The pillion rider cannot be considered as either insurer or the insured and therefore, he is also third party so for as the liability of the insurer is concerned and as such the insurer cannot avoid his liability to pay the compensation on the ground that policy does not cover the risk of the pillion rider.16-Nov-2019

വാഹനങ്ങൾക്ക് എന്തെങ്കിലും Fine അടയ്ക്കാനുണ്ടോ എന്ന് അറിയാൻ

വാഹനങ്ങൾക്ക് എന്തെങ്കിലും Fine അടയ്ക്കാനുണ്ടോ എന്ന് അറിയാൻ ഈ Link ല്‍ വാഹനത്തിന്റെ നമ്പര്‍ കൊടുത്തു Search ചെയ്താൽ ഉടൻ അറിയാം.

Eg. KL05AV0000

https://payment.keralapolice.gov.in/

അറിവിലേയ്ക്കായി ഷെയർ ചെയ്യുക.

2022 may 1 മുതൽ, കോടതിയുടെ നിർദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ അനുസരിച്ച്, ഇൻഷുറൻസ് കമ്പനികളും ഗതാഗത വകുപ്പും ഇനിപ്പറയുന്ന മാർഗ്ഗനിർദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ നടപ്പിലാക്കും

*അറിയിപ്പ്*

2022 may 1 മുതൽ, കോടതിയുടെ നിർദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ അനുസരിച്ച്, ഇൻഷുറൻസ് കമ്പനികളും ഗതാഗത വകുപ്പും ഇനിപ്പറയുന്ന മാർഗ്ഗനിർദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ നടപ്പിലാക്കും:

 1. അനുവദനീയമായ സംഖ്യയുടെ പരിധിയിൽ കവിഞ്ഞ് ഓട്ടോ റിക്ഷയിൽ യാത്ര ചെയ്യുന്ന യാത്രക്കാർക്ക് ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പോളിസിയുടെ ആകസ്മികമായ ഒരു ക്ലോസിലും പരിരക്ഷ ലഭിക്കില്ല.

 2. മുകളിൽ പറഞ്ഞ നിബന്ധനകൾ ഇരുചക്ര വാഹന യാത്രക്കാർക്കും ബാധകമാണ്.

 3. ഹെൽമറ്റ് ധരിക്കാതെ ഇരുചക്ര വാഹനങ്ങൾ ഓടിക്കുന്നത് ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പോളിസിയുടെ പരിധിയിൽ വരില്ല.

 4. റോഡിന്റെ തെറ്റായ വശത്ത് വാഹനം ഓടിക്കുന്നത് മൂലം എന്തെങ്കിലും അപകടം സംഭവിച്ചാൽ, തെറ്റായ വശത്ത് വാഹനമോടിക്കുന്നവർക്ക് നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം ലഭിക്കില്ല, വലത് വശത്ത് വാഹനം ഓടിച്ചവർക്കെതിരെ ഒരു കേസും രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യില്ല.

 5. മദ്യപിച്ച് വാഹനമോടിക്കുന്നവർക്ക് ഇൻഷുറൻസ് പോളിസിയിൽ പരിരക്ഷ ലഭിക്കില്ല, കൂടാതെ വാഹനത്തിന് ഉണ്ടാകുന്ന നാശനഷ്ടത്തിനും നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകില്ല.

 6. തെറ്റായ വശത്തുകൂടി വാഹനമോടിച്ചതു മൂലമാണ് അപകടം സംഭവിക്കുന്നതെങ്കിൽ, ഉടമയിൽ നിന്നോ അയാളുടെ സ്വത്തുക്കളിൽ നിന്നോ 20 ലക്ഷം രൂപ വരെ തുക ഈടാക്കുകയും പരിക്കേറ്റവർക്ക് നൽകുകയും ചെയ്യും.  അടക്കാൻ കഴിയുന്നില്ലെങ്കിൽ 14 വർഷം വരെ തടവ്.

 7. വാഹനങ്ങൾ ഓടിക്കുമ്പോൾ മൊബൈൽ ഫോണിൽ സംസാരിച്ച് അപകടങ്ങൾ സൃഷ്ടിക്കുന്നവർക്കും മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ ശിക്ഷ ബാധകമാണ്.

 8. മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ കേസുകളിൽ സ്വാധീനം ചെലുത്താൻ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നവരുടെ ഡ്രൈവിംഗ് ലൈസൻസ് റദ്ദാക്കും.

 9. മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ കേസുകളിലൊന്നും ഉചിതമായ നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കാത്തതിന് ഉത്തരവാദികളായ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥരെ, തൊഴിലുടമയിൽ നിന്ന് ഒരു ആനുകൂല്യവും കൂടാതെ മൂന്ന് വർഷത്തേക്ക് സർവീസിൽ നിന്ന് സസ്പെൻഡ് ചെയ്യും.

 10. മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ നിയമങ്ങൾ നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട വേഗത പരിധിയിൽ കൂടുതൽ വേഗത്തിൽ ഓടിക്കുന്ന വാഹനങ്ങൾക്കും ബാധകമാണ്.

 11. സീറ്റ് ബെൽറ്റ് ധരിക്കാതെ വാഹനമോടിക്കുന്നവർക്ക് ഒരിക്കലും നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകില്ല.

 ഈ അംഗീകൃത നിയമങ്ങൾ നിങ്ങളുടെ കുടുംബത്തിലെ യുവതലമുറയ്ക്കും സുഹൃത്തുക്കളോടും,ബന്ധുക്കൾക്കളോടും , നിങ്ങളുമായി ബന്ധമുള്ളവരോടും,പാലിക്കുവാൻ നിർബന്ധിക്കുക. വലിയ വിപത്തുകളിൽ നിന്നും അവരെയും സംരക്ഷിക്കുക

    🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

No badge’ rule leaves youngsters happy

The State Transport Department’s order making badges not mandatory for commercial drivers to ply light weight vehicle will impact lives of hundreds of youngsters as now they need not go through the lengthy process of obtaining badges, also known as commercial licences, to run taxis.

The exemption will be applicable to vehicles weighing up to 7,500 kg (gross vehicle weight). That means autorickshaws, two-wheelers (commercial service) and small taxi cars can be driven without badges.
Earlier, procuring badges was a tiresome task as the prospective drivers need to undergo an online test one year after obtaining licences if they have to drive commercial vehicles.

As the new rule came in to being last week, it will now empower youngsters to take up the job of drivers without much hiccup. The order came close on the heels of Union Government’s directive in this direction, which in turn was a follow up of the Supreme Court order of July 2017.“Badges are one thing that keep people away from becoming commercial drivers. They don’t want to wait for one more year and then appear for another exam to obtain badges. Now things will change.

Youngsters can take up driving as a part-time job if they know driving. In the long run, it will create a lot of opportunities for young people including students to earn a living as part-time drivers,” said a senior Regional Transport Officer.

Dinesh Kumar, who has been working as a food delivery boy, said he can now work without fear of being caught as the government has done away with the badges for light motor vehicles. By rule, driving a two-wheeler for commercial purpose earlier required badges.

“Though the police have not stopped me and asked for my badge, but in my mind I had this fear of getting caught someday,” he said. Now I don’t need to think about it, Dinesh added.Muhammed Rafi, a resident of Vallakadavu, had wanted to drive airport taxi during free time, when he was a student. However, he couldn’t do it as he did not posses a badge. “I can now register my car as a commercial taxi and drive by myself. There is no need to hire a driver now,” he said.

Enforcement RTO K M Shaji felt doing away with badges can lead to more road accidents.
“Earlier, to pass examination to procure badges, one required to learn the basic traffic rules. Those who wanted to be dedicated drivers alone applied for badges. Now, anyone who holds a driving license can be a commercial driver,” he said.

Section 138 NI Act Attracted Even In Cases Where Debt Is Incurred After Cheque Is Drawn But Before Presentation: Supreme Court

On Friday, the Supreme Court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invoked even when debt is incurred after the cheque is drawn but before it is encashed. 

The true purpose of Section 138 would not be served if the term “debt or other liability” is interpreted to include only debts that exist on the date of the cheque’s drawing, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed. 

The court went on to say that simply labelling the cheque as a security would not change its nature as an instrument designed to satisfy a legally enforceable debt or liability. 

One of the issues addressed in this appeal was whether the dishonour of a cheque furnished as a “security” is covered by Section 138 of the NI Act. 

The appellants in this case contended that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act would be unconstitutional because the cheque in question was issued as a security and thus is not against a legally enforceable debt or liability. 

They based their argument on a Supreme Court decision in Indus Airways Private Limited v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited (2014) 12 SCC 539. 

The court noted that subsequent decisions in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (2016) 10 SCC 458 and Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand LL 2021 SC 606 had distinguished the Indus Airways decision. 

Post-dated cheques were issued as security for overdue loan instalments in Sampelly and Sripati Singh. The court noted that there was an outstanding debt on the dates the cheques were drawn. 

In terms of the definition of debt, the court stated that a post-dated cheque issued after the debt has been incurred would be covered by the definition of ‘debt.’ 

The court noted that in the current case, a debt was incurred after the respondent began supplying power, but payment was not made due to the LCs’ non-acceptance.