Hello ,
I have joined a company after clearing the interview.
it was mentioned in the appointment letter that i had to submit a security cheque which i will get return after completing 6 months.
i submitted undated signed cheque of 60k to the company as i needed the job.
my one month is almost completed but i am uncomfortable in the company.
My query is -
since this has security cheque involved , i think that company will directly go for encashment of the cheque.
1.if i choose to resign ,how to not lose the money?
2.if i issue for cheque stop payment, will i be held accountable for 138 ?
3.what are the cases that i need to avoid 138 in this above scenario ?
I have joined a company after clearing the interview.
it was mentioned in the appointment letter that i had to submit a security cheque which i will get return after completing 6 months.
i submitted undated signed cheque of 60k to the company as i needed the job.
my one month is almost completed but i am uncomfortable in the company.
My query is -
since this has security cheque involved , i think that company will directly go for encashment of the cheque.
1.if i choose to resign ,how to not lose the money?
2.if i issue for cheque stop payment, will i be held accountable for 138 ?
3.what are the cases that i need to avoid 138 in this above scenario ?
This is not an easy situation to deal with. Your undated cheque has put serious legal (Civil as well as Criminal liability) consequences and the wrath of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act 1881 is inescapable. The NI Act favours the holder of cheque by way of presumptions allowed in the Act as per Section 118 and 139 of the Act. As regards the position on issuance of undated cheques , it is a usual practice that many times cheques are issued bearing no date or post dated cheques. The holder of the cheque enters the date, and thereafter, cheques are presented. Here pl refer to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Purushottamdas Gandhi vs. Manohar Deshmukh 2007 (1) Mh. L.J. 210 observed that inserting such date does not amount to tampering or alteration but by delivery of such undated cheque the drawer authorizes the holder to insert date and the period of 6 months for presentation of such cheque to the Bank would start from the date which bears on the cheque.
In Ashok Badwe vs. Surendra Nighojkar A.I.R. 2001, S.C. 1315 the law is settled that until contrary is proved, presumption is in favour of holder of cheque that it was drawn for discharge of debt or liabilities. However, it is rebuttable one and accused can rebut it by producing cogent evidence. The querist can draw some support from Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Chico Ursula D' Souza 1996 (4) All MR 40 where the former was employer and latter was employee. But the employer had not led evidence to show that accused was liable to pay any due or part thereof and thus liability was not proved. Similarly, it was not proved that the cheque was given towards those liabilities. Accused much earlier to presentation of cheques to the Bank had appraised the complainant that he is not liable to pay any amount, and therefore, stopped payment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had observed that complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for discharge of legal liabilities. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption u/s 139. It merely raises a presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.
From India, Mumbai
1534In Ashok Badwe vs. Surendra Nighojkar A.I.R. 2001, S.C. 1315 the law is settled that until contrary is proved, presumption is in favour of holder of cheque that it was drawn for discharge of debt or liabilities. However, it is rebuttable one and accused can rebut it by producing cogent evidence. The querist can draw some support from Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Chico Ursula D' Souza 1996 (4) All MR 40 where the former was employer and latter was employee. But the employer had not led evidence to show that accused was liable to pay any due or part thereof and thus liability was not proved. Similarly, it was not proved that the cheque was given towards those liabilities. Accused much earlier to presentation of cheques to the Bank had appraised the complainant that he is not liable to pay any amount, and therefore, stopped payment. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had observed that complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for discharge of legal liabilities. Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption u/s 139. It merely raises a presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.
From India, Mumbai
Acceptance of blank cheque by company as security has various aspects.
Are you undergoing any training-specially for you?
What is the exit period in appointment letter?
Are you a probationer?
Ask for exit as per rules and return of cheque.
Compelling you to work is akin to bonded labour.
At any rate when Company asked for such kind of security,you should have rethought.
From India, Pune
Are you undergoing any training-specially for you?
What is the exit period in appointment letter?
Are you a probationer?
Ask for exit as per rules and return of cheque.
Compelling you to work is akin to bonded labour.
At any rate when Company asked for such kind of security,you should have rethought.
From India, Pune
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg
Employer-PF-res trict to wages of Rs 6500.pdf