9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) and next time Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh). 3. To repay the said loans the petitioner issued two cheques in favour of the respondents one being cheque no. PWT 794807 dated 07.01.2008 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only and another cheque being no. PWT 794809 dated 07.01.2008 bearing the face value of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) only in the Punjab National Bank, Kumbhara Branch, Malda. 4. On presentation of the said two cheques to the bank concerned, both were dishonoured and on the said allegations the respondent instituted two complaint cases, one being 273C/2008 and another being 222C/2008. The total claims in respect of both the cases was Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the rigour of the applicability of N.I. is in respect of those two cheques amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- has been extinguished at the moment the respondent agreed to amalgamate his claims in respect of his those two cheques for Rs.2,50,000/- only and subsequently accept Rs.1,50,000/- as the part payment of the said amount. 8. That the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Malda passed in Criminal Revision No. 21/2018 is not in any way sustainable both in facts and laws and the learned Revisional Court was oblivious of the fact that he was to adjudicate the conflict between the parties which originated from two cases under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and when the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petitioner to pay the same to the respondent and his said claim is in no way recoverable under any provision of the N.I. Act as stated above. 13. It is thus prayed that the judgment and order under revision is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be acquitted of all charges. 14. In spite of best efforts to serve, the opposite party was not represented. 15. The relevant portion of the order of the Trial Court dated 02.02.2018 is as follows:- "..............On perusal I find that the value of cheque of this case is Rs.3,00,000/-. It is admitted that in the year 2015 there was an agreement for settlement between the parties at an amount that is less than the cheque amount of this case. If both parties agreed to settle the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation; (ii) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whose of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be sum represented on the cheque; (iii) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
