Dear All,
I have a recruitment placement company. I served one of our clients, and he gave us a cheque of Rs. 1 lac. However, that cheque bounced two times. I filed a case under section 138; however, nothing has been done yet. It has been over a month now, and I don't know what to do next. Please help me out.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I have a recruitment placement company. I served one of our clients, and he gave us a cheque of Rs. 1 lac. However, that cheque bounced two times. I filed a case under section 138; however, nothing has been done yet. It has been over a month now, and I don't know what to do next. Please help me out.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
you can raise your query with The Ombudsman of RBI, whose email id available on the net.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
450From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the terms and conditions were written and in pursuance of which they give you a cheque that got bounced, you can file a summary procedure suit under Order 37, Rule 2 CPC, in which a decree may be passed without leave to defend to the defendant.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You should be asking this to your lawyer, or getting a better lawyer. However, with the condition of the courts as they are, you are unlikely to get immediate relief. In any case, I am sure the customer is going to raise objections, stating there is no doubt due and that there is a dispute, etc. The case will likely go on for a long time. A settlement with the client is more optimal.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Generally a criminal lawyer does not know civil remedies and vice versa and similarly one professional çannot suggest solution regarding all other profession strategies. The queriest was not finding solution to his problem that is why he knocked the citehr. Here even persons having obtained legal advice yet approach citehr to doubly check whether they have properly advised. If I do not know solution to a problem, I will better not answer the query.
Everyone knows it takes years to get relief out of section 138 relief but his curiosity was to find alternative quick remedy.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Everyone knows it takes years to get relief out of section 138 relief but his curiosity was to find alternative quick remedy.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Giving false hope to any poster is a bad thing.
Which you seem to like doing :)
If you have a solution, please call the person and offer to do it for him.
It just happens that I deal with law and lawyers extensively and I know that it takes a very long time and a lot of money and efforts to get any real benefit or relief from sec 138 cases. From the original post, it's clear that the poster does not know that. Telling him it will get done quickly, which is not going to happen, is unfair.
Let's talk on this after you have helped him in getting his money back quickly. I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Which you seem to like doing :)
If you have a solution, please call the person and offer to do it for him.
It just happens that I deal with law and lawyers extensively and I know that it takes a very long time and a lot of money and efforts to get any real benefit or relief from sec 138 cases. From the original post, it's clear that the poster does not know that. Telling him it will get done quickly, which is not going to happen, is unfair.
Let's talk on this after you have helped him in getting his money back quickly. I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Without knowing the content of Order 37 CPC and the conditions which I set out in the post, it is wrong to allege false hope. Please discuss with your lawyer how many cases have resulted in relief for the plaintiff without allowing the defendant to defend. If you want, I can provide you with citations. Please correct your statement.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The company owner has declared his company as bankrupt. Whenever I ask the lawyer about it, he gives me a lot of different advice and forces me to pay more and more to keep the case going. I have heard a lot of things about cheque bounce, like the criminal will get a non-bailable warrant, but it is so difficult to get it done.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the NI Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. What will be the fate of prosecutions under section 138 NI Act if a company is liquidated, has to be ascertained in view of the latest law of the land holding that the decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51.Thus it was held that the decision in Anil Hada has to be treated as not laying down the correct law as far as it states that the Director or any other officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the company.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1364 OF 2014
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7039 of 2007)
Anil Gupta … APPELLANT
VERSUS
Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … RESPONDENTS
14. Again the same question was considered by three Judge Bench
of this Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt.
Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661. The Court noticed the decisions in Anil
Hada (supra) case and Aneeta Hada (supra) case. The three Judge
Bench while partly overruled the finding of Anil Hada (supra)
affirmed the decision of Aneeta Hada (supra). This Court held
“51. We have already opined that the decision in
Sheoratan Agarwal runs counter to the ratio laid
down in C.V. Parekh which is by a larger Bench and
hence, is a binding precedent. On the aforesaid
ratiocination, the decision in Anil Hada has to be
treated as not laying down the correct law as far
as it states that the Director or any other officer
can be prosecuted without impleadment of the
company. Needless to emphasise, the matter would
stand on a different footing where there is some
legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit
ad impossibilia gets attracted.”
“53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of
the Act is concerned with the offences by the
company. It makes the other persons vicariously
liable for commission of an offence on the part of
the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the
vicarious liability gets attracted when the
condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the
Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that
as the liability is penal in nature, a strict
construction of the provision would be necessitous
and, in a way, the warrant.”
“58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction,
we are of the considered opinion that commission of
offence by the company is an express condition
precedent to attract the vicarious liability of
others. Thus, the words “as well as the company”
appearing in the section make it absolutely
unmistakably clear that when the company can be
prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the
other categories could be vicariously liable for
the offence subject to the averments in the
petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious
of the fact that the company is a juristic person
and it has its own respectability. If a finding is
recorded against it, it would create a concavity in
its reputation. There can be situations when the
corporate reputation is affected when a Director is
indicted.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining
the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act,
arraigning of a company as an accused is
imperative. The other categories of offenders can
only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone
of vicarious liability as the same has been
stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on
the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh17
which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the
view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not
correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is
hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is
overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51.
The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated
to be restricted to its own facts as has been
explained by us hereinabove.”
15. In the present case, the High Court by impugned judgment
dated 13th August, 2007 held that the complaint against respondent
no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. Thereby, the
Company being not a party to the proceedings under Section 138
read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the High Court in Anil Hada (supra)has been overruled by three Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), we have no other option but to set aside the rest part of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court held that the proceedings against the appellant can be continued even in absence of the Company. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court so far it relates to appellant and quash the summon and proceeding pursuant to complaint case No.698 of 2001 qua the appellant.
16. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation."
It follows that you must seek intervention in liquidation proceedings for recovery of amount due. Better it would be to file summary procedure suit under Order 37 RULE 2 CPC through a civil lawyer and obtain decree and even implead the liquidator as defendant if you come to know about details.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1364 OF 2014
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7039 of 2007)
Anil Gupta … APPELLANT
VERSUS
Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … RESPONDENTS
14. Again the same question was considered by three Judge Bench
of this Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt.
Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661. The Court noticed the decisions in Anil
Hada (supra) case and Aneeta Hada (supra) case. The three Judge
Bench while partly overruled the finding of Anil Hada (supra)
affirmed the decision of Aneeta Hada (supra). This Court held
“51. We have already opined that the decision in
Sheoratan Agarwal runs counter to the ratio laid
down in C.V. Parekh which is by a larger Bench and
hence, is a binding precedent. On the aforesaid
ratiocination, the decision in Anil Hada has to be
treated as not laying down the correct law as far
as it states that the Director or any other officer
can be prosecuted without impleadment of the
company. Needless to emphasise, the matter would
stand on a different footing where there is some
legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit
ad impossibilia gets attracted.”
“53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of
the Act is concerned with the offences by the
company. It makes the other persons vicariously
liable for commission of an offence on the part of
the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the
vicarious liability gets attracted when the
condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the
Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that
as the liability is penal in nature, a strict
construction of the provision would be necessitous
and, in a way, the warrant.”
“58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction,
we are of the considered opinion that commission of
offence by the company is an express condition
precedent to attract the vicarious liability of
others. Thus, the words “as well as the company”
appearing in the section make it absolutely
unmistakably clear that when the company can be
prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the
other categories could be vicariously liable for
the offence subject to the averments in the
petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious
of the fact that the company is a juristic person
and it has its own respectability. If a finding is
recorded against it, it would create a concavity in
its reputation. There can be situations when the
corporate reputation is affected when a Director is
indicted.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining
the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act,
arraigning of a company as an accused is
imperative. The other categories of offenders can
only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone
of vicarious liability as the same has been
stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on
the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh17
which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the
view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not
correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is
hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is
overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51.
The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated
to be restricted to its own facts as has been
explained by us hereinabove.”
15. In the present case, the High Court by impugned judgment
dated 13th August, 2007 held that the complaint against respondent
no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. Thereby, the
Company being not a party to the proceedings under Section 138
read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the High Court in Anil Hada (supra)has been overruled by three Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), we have no other option but to set aside the rest part of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court held that the proceedings against the appellant can be continued even in absence of the Company. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court so far it relates to appellant and quash the summon and proceeding pursuant to complaint case No.698 of 2001 qua the appellant.
16. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation."
It follows that you must seek intervention in liquidation proceedings for recovery of amount due. Better it would be to file summary procedure suit under Order 37 RULE 2 CPC through a civil lawyer and obtain decree and even implead the liquidator as defendant if you come to know about details.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unfortunately, that is the reality.
Lawyers are aiming to extract as much money as possible from you.
The courts are burdened with pending cases, which prolong even the simplest of matters.
And the police do not prioritize criminal cases under section 138 as they have more pressing responsibilities. Section 138 has essentially reached the end of its useful life, but that is a separate story.
Initiating a section 138 case today offers minimal benefits. It often serves as a mere intimidation tactic where the opposing party seeks to avoid legal repercussions that could lead to imprisonment. In scenarios where the individual is indifferent, confident in their legal representation, or financially insolvent, there is little advantage. In such instances, the likelihood of recovering owed funds is slim.
Subsequently, the key consideration is conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Factors such as the scale of your business, its ability to endure a legal dispute with limited chances of recuperation, and the potential deterrent effect on other clients must be evaluated. This is a decision that cannot be resolved by a member of this forum online. You must make the determination yourself or seek guidance from your business consultant or Chartered Accountant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Lawyers are aiming to extract as much money as possible from you.
The courts are burdened with pending cases, which prolong even the simplest of matters.
And the police do not prioritize criminal cases under section 138 as they have more pressing responsibilities. Section 138 has essentially reached the end of its useful life, but that is a separate story.
Initiating a section 138 case today offers minimal benefits. It often serves as a mere intimidation tactic where the opposing party seeks to avoid legal repercussions that could lead to imprisonment. In scenarios where the individual is indifferent, confident in their legal representation, or financially insolvent, there is little advantage. In such instances, the likelihood of recovering owed funds is slim.
Subsequently, the key consideration is conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Factors such as the scale of your business, its ability to endure a legal dispute with limited chances of recuperation, and the potential deterrent effect on other clients must be evaluated. This is a decision that cannot be resolved by a member of this forum online. You must make the determination yourself or seek guidance from your business consultant or Chartered Accountant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Company Profile_NIDAAN Corporate Services.pdf
Company Profile.ppt