Claim only that amount you deserve in a Cheque to have valid claim under Section 138 NI Act: Hon’ble Supreme Court: Read Judgement
Cheque Bounce and Money Recovery

Claim only that amount you deserve in a Cheque to have valid claim under Section 138 NI Act: Hon’ble Supreme Court: Read Judgement

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that offence of Cheque Bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be valid if the cheque carry total amount without deduting the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the cheque.

The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally enforceable debt" as per Section 138 Negotiable instrument Act.

Key Observations by the Hon'ble Supreme courts are

(i) For the commission of an offence under 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 whole 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 the 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 offence under Section 138 will stand attracted.

Download this important judgement from here

In a historic judgement, Supreme Court provides guidelines for deciding compensation and maintenance in matrimonial cases
Family Dispute

In a historic judgement, Supreme Court provides guidelines for deciding compensation and maintenance in matrimonial cases

Citation of the matter: CRIMINAL APPEA L NO. 730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503/2018).

Referred Sections in the Judgement:

 Section 125 and 128 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

People Also Read This: How much should be the Maintenance to the Spouse? Supreme Court Decided in its judgement.

Key happenings in the matter Chronologically:

1. Family Court: (24.08.2015)

The Wife (Neha) first filed an interim application u/s 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and their son by her husband (Rajnesh). The Family Court awarded her an Order for interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to Wife starting from 01.09.2013 and Rs.5,000/- per month to their son starting from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015 and Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.09.2015 till further orders.

2. Bombay High Court- Nagpur Bench (14.08.2018)

The above order was challenged by the husband as he was unemployed and could not pay the maintenance amount as directed by the Court. He challenged by way of a Criminal Writ Petition No.875/2015 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition dated 14.08.2018 and affirmed the Order of the Family Court.

People Also Read This: Maintenance To Be Awarded From The Date Of Filing Application

3. Supreme Court: (2020)

Husband appealed against the High Court’s judgement in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court directed the Husband to pay the entire arrears of maintenance @Rs.15,000/- per month within a period of 12 weeks from the date of judgment and to comply with all the orders u/s 125 of CrPC. In addition to this, Supreme Court observed that this application of interim maintenance was pending before the court for 7 years now and Courts could not pass orders for enforcement against the successive applications filed by the Wife.

For the above purpose, Supreme Court provided for framing of guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would remove issues of  overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.

Read complete Judgement:     https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/37875/37875_2018_39_1501_24602_Judgement_04-Nov-2020.pdf

Unmarried major Daughter if Physically Or Mental sound is Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Father U/s 125 Of CrPC: Supreme Court.
Family Dispute

Unmarried major Daughter if Physically Or Mental sound is Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Father U/s 125 Of CrPC: Supreme Court.

Referred Sections in the Judgement:

 

Case number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615  of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8260/2018)

  • Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
  • Section 20 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 3(b)
  • Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Key happenings in the matter Chronologically:

1. Judicial Magistrate: (16.03.2011)

This matter was first filed u/s 125 CrPC claiming maintenance by Ms Abhilasha’s mother  (Abhilasha  is the one who filed the current matter in Supreme Court) from her husband (father of Abhilasha) for herself and her three children (one of them was Abhilasha). The learned Judicial Magistrate by their judgment dated 16.02.2011 dismissed the application under Section 125 allowed the grant of maintenance for Abhilasha till she attains majority.

2. Session Judge: (17.02.2014)

The above judgement was challenged before the court of Session Judge. This was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 17.02.2014 and the Hon’ble Judge midified the order  and said that Abhilasha  shall be entitled to maintenance till 26.04.2005 when she attains majority.

3. Punjab Haryana High-Court (16.02.2018)

The above order was challenged through an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was was filed before the  Punjab Haryana, High court. High Court through its judgment dated16.02.2018 dismissed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and said that previous both courts were correct in their judgement and said that Abhilasha was entitled to get maintenance till she is attaining majority and not thereafter since she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. High Court also said that in such a situation when a child, who though has attained majority but is unable to maintain itself only then is entitled to get maintenance.

4. Supreme Court: (2020)

Abhilasha Appealed against the High Court’s judgement in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed that Abhilasha is not entitled for maintenance from here father. Hon’ble Supreme Court also reaffirm that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married or attained majority.  If she proves that that she is unable to maintain herself only in that situation she can claim maintenance.

Read the complete judgement here: 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/34880/34880_2018_35_1501_23965_Judgement_15-Sep-2020.pdf