Cheque Bounce Remedy in Indore
If anyone of you is facing the issues of a cheque bounce regularly facing Cheque bounce problems in your day todays life do not hesitate to give us a call. Our cheque bounce case expert lawyer in Indore will help you out and how to deal with it legally. Cheque bounce is a major problem arising in Indore for couple of years. But after the pendermic it have started creating big problems and there is huge rise in cheque bounce cases in Indore during last two years. So lets understand what exactly the problem of cheque bounce in Indore and how to deal with it legally.
Cheque bounce is defined and dealt with section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Detail Provision is followed Under section. 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by 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 by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
If anyone of you is facing the issues of a cheque or have a Cheque issued by a debtor who has been bounced or say has also been dishonoured then, we the Best Lawyer for Cheque Bounce Cases in Indore are right here to solve such issues. Besides this, there are also again most of the other issues such as someone has issued a cheque bounce notice against you or it may also happen that you may also get or received the court summons for a 138 NI (Negotiable Instruments Act) complaint against you then, use only the services of the Indore Law Firm which is the most praiseworthy as well as trustworthy firm.
We are the most wanted Best Lawyer For Cheque Bounce Cases in Indore because, people find our services as the most rated in India catering and altering all your needs and doubts within the shortest time frame, stipulated budget frame as well as serve all beyond one’s expectations. It has also observed that most of the civil wrongs have made criminal offences by statutes fundamentally such as Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thus, if you are in discharge of any such form of a legal liability issue where your cheque is dishonoured by a banker abreast with a Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 then a person doing such malpractices are definitely liable for punishment that can obviously be an imprisonment for a term that can be extended for 2 years or may also be punished to pay a fine that may be extended to the twice the amount of the cheque, or sometimes is also eligible for both the punishments.
Supreme court orders establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in five districts of five states that have the highest pendency of cheque bounce cases.
In a bid to reduce the pendency of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in five districts of five states that have the highest pendency, i.e., Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh.A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat said that it has accepted suggestions made by amicus Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on establishments of pilot courts.The Supreme Court bench passed the verdict after the apex court took suo moto cognizance of the humongous pendency of cheque bounce cases in March 2020.In the order, the bench said, “We have incorporated the suggestions of the amicus with respect to the setting up of the pilot courts and we have given the timelines also. It is to begin on September 1,2022 onwards. The secretary general of this court shall ensure that a copy of the present order is directly communicated to the registrar general of the said five high courts, which should put it before the chief justices for immediate action.”
The apex court directed its secretary general to communicate the order to the registrar general of the high courts of these states while directing them to file an affidavit by July 21, 2022 on compliance.
Cheque bounce cases as of December 31, 2019, stood at 35.16 lakh out of a total of 2.31 crore pending criminal cases in the country.
The amicus had suggested having one court in one district with a retired judge as a pilot project.
The matter will now be heard on July 26.A report by amicus stated, “It is thus suggested that the High Courts must employ the services of retired judicial officers for this purpose. The human resources required to operationalise these courts could also be drawn from retired court staff. This scheme could be tested on a pilot basis in 5 judicial districts with the highest pendency in the 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh) and the viability of utilising services of retired judicial officers can be examined based on the results of the pilot study,”.
Adv. J.S. Rohilla