TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese were presented for encashment, those were dishonoured. Amount covered by cheques related to purchase of hosiery goods and readymade garments by respondent from the appellant towards the price of such articles. Appellant further alleges that he was assured by respondent that whenever cheques are presented those would be encashed. 3. It is in these circumstances appellant was induced to part with the goods. This was also alleged to be the result of dishonest intention of the respondent who never intended to pay the amount. This plea was strengthened because the respondent had no account in the bank and cheques were returned with the memo Refer to drawer . 4. Appellant claims that first notice was issued on 25-2-92 which could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint before the trial Court was presented on 9-5-92 i.e. on 14 day. 8. As per requirement, of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after the intimation of dishonour of a cheque is received by the drawee/holder in due course as the case may be, within 15 days of receipt of intimation of such dishonour, notice is required to be issued to the drawer of the cheque in question. Under law drawer has got further period of 15 days to make the payment from the receipt of such notice of dishonour of the cheque in question. It is only thereafter that an action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be initiated against the defaulting party. 9. As per narration of the facts above, cheques were initially dishon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unil Kumar. The relevant paragraph of this judgment is extracted hereunder (Para 10) :- Now, the question is how the apparently conflicting provisions of the Act, one enabling the payee to repeatedly present the cheque and the other giving him only one opportunity to file a complaint for its dishonour, and that too within one month from the date the cause of action arises can be reconciled. Having given our anxious consideration to this question, we are of the opinion that the above two provisions can be harmonised with the interpretation that on each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour a fresh right - and not cause of action - accrues in his favour. He may, therefore, without taking preemptory action in exercise of his such rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
