Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - If the partnership firm fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time, after receipt of notice, the partners are also liable to be prosecuted. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Notice - When firm has been served with a notice each partner need not be served with a separate notice individually. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283
#10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Service shall be deemed to be effected unless contrary is proved. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs
0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Received back with postal endorsement 'always absent in my duty' - If accused were not available at their place of business and their establishment remains closed during working hours, it will be
deemed that notice was served on them. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Mere presentation of petition for winding up doe not render transactions/dispositions undertaken during the period the petition is pending void ab initio - If the Company or its Directors do not make payment of cheques on the ground that the petition for winding up has been presented, it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - Date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice - Period of 15 days is to be computed from the date of refusal. (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666
(ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Once the limitation to file complaint starts to run it cannot stop for any reason, and if complaint is not lodged before limitation runs out, no
complaint can be lodged thereafter. (Y.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D.B.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Special provisions contained in the
Negotiable Instruments Act prevail over the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who signed the cheque - Company going into liquidation - Company discharged - Directors who signed the cheque cannot escape the criminal liability - Protection of S.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H)
#17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Sleeping director - Cannot be prosecuted - Onus is on the complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner - Proceedings against the petitioner quashed. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (CALCUTTA)
#18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Magistrate has to take cognizance before
proceeding to record sworn statements of complainant and his witnesses - Taking of cognizance after examination of complainant is impermissible in law and it would vitiate the entire
proceedings. (K.S.Mallikarjuna Prasanna Vs M/s Leo Earth Movers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0184 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0506
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop Payment' - After issuance of a cheque, subsequent notice by drawer to the drawee or the Bank for stoppage of payment does not preclude action under S.138 by the drawee or holder in due course. 1996(1) Civil CC 309 (SC) : 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 99 (S.C.) & 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 555 (S.C.) overruled. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S.C.) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL.) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No sufficient funds in account on the date of issuance of cheque - Funds made available when cheque was presented - There is no
presumption of dishonesty - S.138 gets attracted only when cheque is dishonoured. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S.C.) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL.) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability - This question is a matter of evidence - Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground of non compliance with provision regarding notice - Plea accepted by trial Court - Order set aside - It was incumbent on the Magistrate to afford sufficient opportunity to the complainant. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed u/s 138 - Accused alleging cheques stolen and signatures forged - No finding given on this aspect so far - Until the Magistrate decides the said allegations of forgery on evidence adduced by both parties, it cannot be held that those documents are really forged - Until then, contempt proceedings not maintainable. (M/s Jaju & Co. Vs Shanta Devi Dhoot), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (A.P.) : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0049 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0200 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0393 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law - Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1)
BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN)