Act 138

Find out why ACT 138, HB997 HD2 SD2 CD1, 7/10/2017.

Unworthiness of cheques - § 138 of the law on tradable securities

BILLY: WHAT'S A CHECK? Paragraph 6 of the Tradable Securities Act defines the check as : a) "electronic cheque" means a check that contains the precise reflection of a personal check and is created, recorded and countersigned in a safe system that ensures the minimal security standard using a biometric or non-biometric digitally secured and asymmetrical cryptosystem; physically moving the check in hard copy.

Note II - For the purpose of this section, "clearing house" means the Clearingstelle administered by the Reserve Bank of India or a Clearingstelle recognized as such by the Reserve Bank of India". E-Check is the picture of a standard hard copy check that is created, recorded and autographed in a secured system with a digitally and asymmetrically cryptosign.

In simple terms, an electric check is nothing more than an ordinary check made on a computer system, and instead of marking it with inks, it is marked with the legal signature of the same name. A " check " now also contains an electric check. dishonouring of cheques due to inadequacy, etc. If a check taken by a holder of an individual in an escrow deposit held with a Banker to pay an amount of funds to another holder of that deposit for the full or partial settlement of a debit or other obligation is surrendered without remuneration by the bank, either because the amount credited to the deposit deposit is not sufficient to cash the check or because it is in excess of the amount payable by that deposit under an arrangement made with that particular depository, that holder shall be considered a criminal offender and, without prejudice to the fact that he is a criminal offender.

for any other clause of this Act, shall be punishable by a custodial sentence of up to two years or a monetary penalty, which may amount to twice the amount of the check, or both: a) the check has been presented to the credit institution within six month of its issue or within the date of expiry, whichever is sooner; c) the issuer of the check does not make the said amount of funds payable to the creditor or, where applicable, the bearer of the check within fifteen workingdays of the receipt of the notification.

It is advisable to present the check within a six-month time limit or within its term of expiry, whichever is before. He or she should have notified the issuer in written form within 30 workingdays after he has received information about the check being returned to the bank.

Upon receiving notification from the owner in due course, the exhibitor would not have had to settle the check within 15 workingdays of the receipt of the notification. In the following words, Section 138 explains the above reasons for inadequate cash in the check holder's account:

Amount of the check shall exceed the amount that the debit card can pay under an agreement between the debit card and the issuer of the check. Apart from this, however, the courts have also acknowledged some other minds who, while not explicitly saying "insufficient means", implicitly mean the same thing, and a check that has not been cashed for any of these reasons may be used for law enforcement purposes under § 138 of the Tradable Instruments Act.

3. See "Drawer": There have been repeated decisions by court that a false intent on the part of the issuer leading to non-payment of the check would result in legal action under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, irrespective of the real reason for non-payment. "As long as the issue of cheques is not claimed and legal responsibility has not been established, non-redemption is not an omission resulting in penalties.

Complaints about such a check made out as a present are not justifiable. "1995 Andh LT 468, 1997 Cr LJ 4237 AP; 1998 (3) Bank LJ 279; Supreme Court ruled: Recognition of the violation of the check norm - No suspensive requirement that the appeal should have been duly marked by the creditor as the owner of the check - A claim does not have to be filed by the plaintiff himself - Plea or lawyer, on whose behalf the plaintiff has carried out the appeal, is entitled to do so.

Check crime - Respondent's decease at the defendant's own discretion - His statutory beneficiaries are eligible for further action. Check protests - The action for violation of 138 cannot be brought against the statutory beneficiaries of the individual who wrote the check.

If the defendant pays the full amount of the check during the proceedings pursuant to 138, the defendant is not released from his responsibility for the non-redemption of checks. Postdated Check - Is not a "check" on the day it is issued - It is only issued on the day it is issued - Until that day the postdated check will remain a bill of exchange. 2.

A postdated check becomes a check within the sense of 139 on the day on which it is issued and not on the day on which the 6-month deadline is to be expected for the purpose of the reservation (a) to § 138 from that day. In the case of a check with a date in the jar, therefore, a time limit of six month from the date indicated on the front of the check is to be expected and not an earlier date on which the check was handed over by the issuer to the recipient.

The defendant wrote a plain check with no date and amount and sent it by mail asking the defendant to submit it after one months - The law on the replenishment of the amount and date was a substantial amendment and could not be implemented, although it was made out for statutory responsibility - amendment invalidated the check without the agreement of the person who made it.

Changed date by inserting 1 before'2' in the calendar to give the impression that the check was made out on December 25. In 1993, to deliver the check within the term of the check. a) the check has been presented to the credit institution within a time limit of six from the date of its issue or within the term of application, whichever is sooner; dates after receiving the said notification.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that a plea in law for the lodging of a claim pursuant to 138 shall not come to the payer of a check until the payer is notified within the stipulated deadline after receiving information on the non-payment of the check and the following non-payment of the check by the payer within the stipulated deadline, i.e. 15 workingdays after he has received the notification.

Period of notices - Termination at an adress is not enough to comply with the legal obligation to give written notification - Termination should be at the right adress - Furthermore, a simple termination is not enough if the termination is given back on the grounds that it was reserved because it is not the right adress or the gate in the diverted adress is closed - Return of the confirmation document with such a note - The termination will not be delivered.

Delivery - Delivery of - can only be proven by presenting a mail order confirmation or by telephone call to the PO - In the lack of a mail order confirmation, no assumption can be made in favor of the claimant for the delivery of the message by recorded delivery - An acknowledgment of delivery without a mail order number or a mail order confirmation number specified therein - No postmark at the moment of delivery to the recipient or at the moment of return to the consignor, cannot be acceptable as fulfilment of the regulations of § 138 (b) of the law.

The defendant wrote a clean check without specifying the date and amount and sent it to the defendant by mail to submit it after one months - question whether the clean check falls under the check definitions? - If the check is not made out for a certain amount, it does not come under the bill definitions - The complainant's law on topping up the amount part and date was a substantial amendment and could not be implemented, although it was made out for a statutory guarantee - amendment without the agreement of the side

The right of the defendant to claim that a plain check has been misused by the creditor cannot be revoked by such a simple authorisation of the signatures. The defendant has concluded a collateral contract with the plaintiff for the disposal of his products - the defendant has drawn up a blind check as collateral for the collateral for the security contract - no fault or responsibility exists in the handing over of checks to the plaintiff's plaintiff - objection on the basis of a blind check, which was drawn up as collateral, is not tenable.

Assumption in favor of the owner: The owner of a check is deemed to have obtained the check mentioned in 138 for the complete or partial repayment of a debit or other liabilities, unless the opposite is proven.