Case laws

Ans: In Andhra Pradesh High Court , Amravati S Madhusudhana Rao vs N J Prasanthi on 30 November, 2021, the learned high court said that the earning of wife was not a bar to maintenance of wife . The learned Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted that the wife was entitled to maintenance according to the status and lifestyle of her husband as if she were living in her husband’s home.

Ans: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the payee received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge, in wholly or partly, of any debt or any liability.  This presumption is no doubt rebuttable by the accused, by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. So, if the accused can establish a probable defence, that creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, then the prosecution would fail and the accused can do so by only using the materials or evidence presented by the prosecution and in many cases an accused did not need to present another or own evidence. Virender Kumar vs Sumit on 25 April, 2018 IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET NAGPAL, MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI. The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved for drawer under negotiable instrument act. Section 140 of the Negotiab...

Ans: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The Section 139 states that it will be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the payee received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge, in wholly or partly, of any debt or any liability.  This presumption is no doubt rebuttable by the accused, by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. So, if the accused can establish a probable defence, that creates a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, then the prosecution would fail and the accused can do so by only using the materials or evidence presented by the prosecution and in many cases the accused did not need to present another or own evidence. Virender Kumar vs Sumit on 25 April, 2018 IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET NAGPAL, MM (NI ACT)-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: NEW DELHI. Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lays down that there is no such defence, that the drawer has no reason to believe, when the cheque wa...

Ans: Friendly loan concerning unaccounted money Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, does not include within its purview the liability to pay an unaccounted cash amount. So, if there was a loan given which was in the form of an unaccounted cash, then it is not legally enforceable to repay it. Sanjay Mishra v. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor In this case, it was held by the Mumbai High Court Court that the applicant has failed to prove that the cheque issued by the respondent was in discharge of a legal liability of the loan amount, and also the respondent denied her signatures on the bill of exchange as well as the cheque and also the learned Judge had considered that the applicant acknowledged that the amount advanced was unaccounted and the same was not disclosed to the Income Tax Authority. x

 Ans: Cheque bounced given as a security  If an accused or the drawer of the cheque, proves that the cheque issued, was not in discharge of any debt or liability, while issuing the cheque, as well as it was just given as security deposit, hence it would not attract the offence under the Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  Joseph Vilangadan v. Phenomenal Health Care Services In this case, the appellants said that the given cheque was the refundable security deposit to ensure the performance of the work and the terms of the contract, as well as there was no existing debt or liability. Also, when the agreement was entered , there was no debt or liability on the part of the drawer, and it was mentioned in the terms of the contract that if the contractor fails to perform his services then the respondent or holder could encash and can recover the amount. But it did not happen so and the work was performed, and therefore, it did not come under the purview of  S...

Ans: Some of the significant features of the 2002 amendment in negotiable instrument act are as follows:  1)​The period within, which the payee must render notice to the drawer, extended to thirty days against fifteen days earlier.  2)​The maximum jail term for offences enhanced to two years from one year.  3)​The trials, as far as practicable, must be continued from day to day, consistently with the interest of justice, until the conclusion. 4. Endeavour must be to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint;  5)​A copy of the summons issued by a magistrate to an accused or witness would also be served through special post or impaneled couriers. 6)​The evidence of the complainant may be given by him on an affidavit as well as be read in evidence, and the court, if it thinks fit, shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavits (with exceptions).  7)​Offences...

Ans: The dishonour of cheque is not an offence punishable under criminal law and the holder of a cheque had an only civil remedy and if the holder of cheque wanted to make it a criminal offence he had to take recourse to section 420 of Indian Penal Code alleging cheating on the part of the drawer of the cheque. The punishment provided for such cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment up to seven years as well as a fine. Two things are important for the implication of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., dishonest intention as well as men’s rea. If the fraudulent or dishonest intention is absent, the question of committing an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. x