Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1381 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - successive presentation of the cheque within the period permitted, when the cheque was earlier returned for the reason "account closed" is legally permissible? - HELD THAT:- While dealing with the cheque returned on the ground that the "account closed", it was observed NEPC MICON LTD. VERSUS MAGMA LEASING LTD. [1999 (4) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT] that "account is closed" would mean that the cheque is returned as unpaid on the ground that "the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque". It is observed in M/S LAXMI DYECHEM VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. [2012 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] that the reasons for dishonour of cheque "as account closed", "payment stopped", "referred to drawer" are only species of the genus that the amount of money available in the account is insufficient. Therefore, these grounds for return would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. It is no doubt, a cheque may be presented second time. Validity of second presentation depends on facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment in MSR Leathers V.S. Palaniappan and another [2012 (10) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT] deals with the case where the cheque was returned for the reason "not arranged funds for". We have the case where the cheque was returned for the reason "account closed". The aforesaid judgments relied by the counsel appearing for the respondent do not deal with the situation where a cheque was presented again, when the earlier presentation was dishonoured on the ground "account closed". In the case before hand, the first presentation of cheque and return on the ground of "account closed" was not even mentioned in the statutory notice and the complaint and it was not informed to the petitioner and petitioner had never asked the respondent to represent the cheque again. In the case before hand the cheque was returned for the reason that "account closed" on 03.02.2016 when it was presented for the first time on 02.02.2016. Suppressing this return, cheque was presented again on 28.03.2016 and it was again returned for the same reason "account closed". It is palpably clear that second presentation was made only to bring the case within a period of limitation. There is no logic or reason for representing the cheque again, when the cheque was returned for the reason "account closed". Once account is closed, there is no question of re-opening the account to facilitate payment in the same account. It is quite obvious that the respondent having failed to issue a statutory notice within stipulated period after the first return, again presented the cheque to save the limitation. This Court finds that this case is barred by limitation and cannot be maintained. Petition allowed.
|