9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentation, the total cheque amount was payable by the petitioner towards an enforceable debt and liability. The revisional application is accordingly dismissed. - The Hon ble Justice Shampa Dutt ( Paul ) For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Kazi Safiullah. For the State : None For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None ORDER Shampa Dutt ( Paul ) , J. 1. The present revision has been preferred against an order and judgment dated 14.12.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Malda. 2. The petitioner s case is that in the year 2008, the petitioner being in certain financial trouble took loans from the opposite party no. 1 on two occasions, one of Rs.1,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Mr. Md. Kazi Shafiullah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) which remained unpaid to the respondent is the part of the compromise settlement between the parties which is not covered under any claim of the respondent under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and the respondent admittedly did not file any complaint before any Court claiming the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in respect of any cheque having the face value of the said amount which had ever been issued by this petitioner in favour of the respondent and the same was never been dishonoured by any bank due to any deficiency on the part of this petitioner. 7. That t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t concerned on accepting the compromise to settle his all claims against the petitioner for Rs.2,50,000/- and accepting the part payment of the said sum, is deprived from the benefit of the provision of N.I. Act. 11. That claim of Rs.1,00,000/- of the respondent is not covered by any of the two cheques referred by the respondent before the learned Trial Court as none of the cheques given to him has the face value of Rs.1,00,000/-. 12. That the ultimate consolidated claim of Rs.2,50,000/- of the respondent against the petitioner, nowhere corresponds to his earlier claims against this petitioner in respect of the alleged two cheques referred above and as such claim of Rs.1,00,000/- of the respondent against this petitioner and in no way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,00,000/- respectively. iii) The cheque was presented (date not mentioned) on maturity but dishonoured. iv) Admittedly, the settlement, if any was not made between the period when the cheque was drawn and the day it was presented on maturity. v) Settlement as stated failed as the settlement amount was not paid. vi) On the date of the cheque being presented, the total amount in the cheque was due and payable by the petitioner towards an enforceable debt/liability. 18. In Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 30. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below : (i) For the commission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantive part of Section 138, the validity of the form of the notice need not be decided. 19. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the claim of the balance amount on settlement not being the amount of cheque, the present proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act being not maintainable, is not in accordance with law, as the payment was not made between the date when cheque was drawn and the date when the cheaque was presented on maturity, and on the date of presentation, the total cheque amount was payable by the petitioner towards an enforceable debt and liability. 20. The revisional application being CRR 606 of 2019 is accordingly dismissed. 21. The order and judgment dated 14.12.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2018 by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
