9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 515 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally valid debt or liability existed against the Petitioner towards R1 or not - failure to rebut the presumption as enshrined in Section 139 of the NI Act - HELD THAT - The existence of an agreement between the parties has also not been denied. The issuance of the cheques as partial payment towards the terms of the agreement has also not been denied. The evidence of the Complainant stating that the two cheques were towards discharge of a legal liability has not been demolished under cross-examination. Hence, it is evident that Exhibits 1 and 2 were issued by the Petitioner in the discharge of a legal liability. The Agreement was subsisting between the parties in view of Section 4 of the Contract Act and considering the date of posting of Notice Exhibit 11 by the R1 to the Petitioner and the fact that it was received by the Petitioner only on 08-02-2018. The impugned judgement requires no interference - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Validity of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Interpretation of communication of revocation under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 3. Determination of legally enforceable debt or liability towards the Respondent. 4. Application of Section 139 of the NI Act regarding presumption of discharge of debt through a cheque. 5. Consideration of evidence and legal arguments regarding the agreement and issuance of cheques. Issue 1: Validity of Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The Petitioner challenged the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was based on the dishonoring of two cheques issued as partial payment for a property purchase. The courts found that the defense of intentional dishonor was untenable as the bank's memos indicated insufficient funds. The conviction was upheld based on the presumption of discharge of debt through the cheques, as per Section 139 of the NI Act. Issue 2: Interpretation of Communication of Revocation under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: The courts analyzed the communication of revocation under Section 4 of the Contract Act concerning the termination of an agreement. The timing of the notice of termination was crucial in determining the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The courts concluded that the agreement was not terminated before the presentation of the cheques, as the notice was posted after the cheques were dishonored. Issue 3: Determination of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability towards the Respondent: The courts examined whether a legally valid debt existed towards the Respondent based on the communication of termination and the issuance of the cheques. The Petitioner's argument of handing over the cheques as future security was dismissed, and the courts emphasized the legal liability arising from the agreement for payment. Issue 4: Application of Section 139 of the NI Act regarding Presumption of Discharge of Debt through a Cheque: The courts discussed the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which presumes that a cheque is issued for the discharge of a debt or liability unless proven otherwise. The courts highlighted that this presumption is rebuttable and must be challenged with a probable defense supported by evidence. Issue 5: Consideration of Evidence and Legal Arguments Regarding the Agreement and Issuance of Cheques: The courts analyzed the evidence related to the agreement for property purchase, the issuance of the cheques, and the communication between the parties. The courts found that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legal liability, and the agreement between the parties was still subsisting at the time of cheque presentation. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower court's judgment, emphasizing the legal principles of communication of revocation, discharge of debt through cheques, and the existence of a legally enforceable liability. The Petitioner was ordered to pay the fine imposed within a specified period, failing which imprisonment would be enforced. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal and factual aspects surrounding the case, ensuring a thorough examination of the issues raised.
|
