In the appeal before the supreme court against the judgement of Madras High Court in the matter of Sicagen India Ltd. vs. Mahindra Vadineni, it was held by the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee held that a ‘cheque bounce’ complaint filedafter re-presentation of cheque and issuance of second statutory notice is maintainable. In this case the accused issued three cheques in favour of the complainant, the complainant presented the cheques and they were dishonoured after that notice was issued to the accused on 31.08.2009 and thereafter the cheques were re-presented and second statutory notice were issued on 25.02.2010 as the cheques were dishonoured again hence, the complainant filed complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act .The madras High court dismissed on petition filed by the accused the complaint by holding that the ‘complaint was filed in the same cause of action as the amount has been specifically mentioned in the first notice dated 31.08.2009 and the complainant had himself delayed the matter and issued the second notice dated 25.02.2010 for the same amount hence, it is not maintainable. On Appeal before the Supreme Court the Court relied upon the Judgement of three judge bench in MSR Leathers vs. Palaniappan in which it was held that there is nothing in section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act that forbids the holder of cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and to make complaint on successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation. Hence, The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of Madras High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial court.
Courtesy/By: Sakshi Shukla
|
18 Jan 2019
