9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the cheque amount and the existing liability. 2. Whether the cheque was issued as security or towards discharge of liability. Analysis: Issue 1: Discrepancy in the cheque amount and the existing liability The petitioner raised a ground seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the complaint for the entire cheque amount of Rs. 1,50,000 is illegal as the existing liability was only Rs. 1,01,574. The petitioner contended that since the cheque amount exceeded the liability at the time of issuance, the complaint should only cover the actual due amount. However, the respondent justified the complaint, stating that it was filed for the non-payment of the due amount of Rs. 1,01,574 within the stipulated time. The court noted that the complainant's demand was only for the portion of the cheque amount representing the existing liability, as clearly stated in the complaint and the statutory notice. The court interpreted the term "such amount" in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to refer to the amount of liability, not the cheque amount. Therefore, the court held that the complainant was within their rights to file the complaint for the due amount, and the petition was dismissed. Issue 2: Whether the cheque was issued as security or towards discharge of liability The petitioner argued that the cheque was given as security, not for discharging the liability. The court ruled that determining whether the cheque was for security or liability discharge is a matter for the trial court to decide during the trial proceedings. The court emphasized that this point could not be raised at the current stage before the High Court. Therefore, the court did not delve further into this aspect and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial promptly. The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was instructed to continue with the case expeditiously.
|
