9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith his son is the owner of the premises situated in 0-4, Swastik Bhawan, Ranjit Nagar, Commercial Complex, near Satyam Cinema, New Delhi-8. The respondents took this commercial premises of the petitioner on tenancy on a monthly rent of ₹ 137.00persquare feet made of ₹ 12.00. The rent for structure of the premises of Re. l.00 as the rental for the fittings and fixtures therein. The tenancy was made for 33 months. The rent agreed to be paid every month came to ₹ 3,744.00 and ₹ 624.00. The respondent issued a cheque for ₹ 7,488.00 as an initial payment and thereafter the payment became irregular even the cheque when presented was dishonoured with the remarks refer to drawer . It is further the case of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability is returned to the bank unpaid ,either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account, the drawer shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque, or with both A cheque can be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or with the period of its validity, whichever is earlier as laid down in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138. Clause (b)of the said Proviso lays down that the payee or the holder in due course may make a demand for payment of the amount cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented once to my mind is not a correct position of the law and in this regard I am supported by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Richard Samson Sherrat v. Sudhir Kumar Sanghi Another, reported in 1992 (2) Crim 150where it was held that when the statute has not laid down limitation, on the number of times that a cheque may be presented within the period of six months or any shorter period under Clause (a) of Proviso to Section 138, it will not be desirable to read into the said clause any such restriction as to number of times a cheque may be presented. Similar view was followed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Ravindranathan v. Hussain, reported in II (1992) CCR 2129 where it was observed that the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
