9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), inter alia, alleging therien that it had entered into a contract with the respondent herein as per which the appellant was to supply some material for the completion of certain project which was undertaken by the respondent.It was further stated that the respondent was supposed to make payment in terms of the said agreement as under: "Payment 1. Rs. 25,000.00 at the time of release of Purchase Order 2. Rs. 25,000.00 at the time of Board Level Demonstration. 3. Rs. 25,000.00 at the time of Road Triais. 4. Rs. 50,000.00 at the time of supply of units. 5. Balance Rs. 50,000.00 plus the taxes applicable within 45 days from the date of supply of units. We hereby agree by the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yout Branch, Bangalore stating the reason as INSUFFICIENT FUNDS as per the endorsement i.e. memorandum of cheques unpaid, dated 10.12.2004 and 16.12.2004 respectively. Thus you have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 of the IPC. And hence I hereby issue the following; You hereby take this notice that the cheques issued by you in favour of my client dated 22.12.2004 and 15.12.2004 bearing number 795553 and 795554 respectively, towards the payment of balance amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,000=00 (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand) towards the design and development of AVL Units with Base Station Unit supplied to you." Pertinently no reply was given to these notices by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heques as holder in due course which were admittedly given by the respondent to the appellant and the said cheques were dishonoured when they were presented for encashment to the Bank and he, further, is able to establish that due notice of the dishonour of the said cheques was given to the respondent as provided in law, there was a clear presumption in favour of the appellant that the money was due under the said cheques.It may be noted that there is no defence to the effect that the cheques were not issued by the respondent or the cheques do not bear its signatures or they were not presented properly for encashment. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not even necessary for the appellant to produce any document to the effect that it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
