Frequently Asked Questions NI Act

FAQs


1. What happens if I send the cheque bounce notice after 30 days?


If you issue the notice 30 days after the date of receiving the bank memo, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act will be time-barred and not maintainable. However, you may re-present the cheque (if it is still valid within its 3-month period) and reinitiate the process afresh.


2. Can I send a cheque bounce notice by email or WhatsApp?


Yes. Courts have recognised email and electronic communication as valid supplementary proof of notice. However, it is still advisable to send a registered or speed post copy to ensure statutory compliance and maintain physical evidence of service.


3. What if the drawer refuses to accept the notice?


Refusal to accept a properly sent legal notice is treated as “deemed service.” If the postal endorsement reflects “refused” the law presumes that service has been completed, and prosecution can proceed accordingly.


4. What is the penalty for cheque bounce under Section 138 of the NI Act?


The offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. Additionally, Courts often direct payment of compensation to the complainant to ensure recovery of dues.

6. How long do I have to file a complaint after serving the notice?


You must file the complaint within one month from the expiry of 15 days after the notice is received by the drawer. Any delay beyond this requires filing an application for condonation of delay, supported by sufficient cause.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Civi: Radical Changes in pleadings not allowed through amendment at advanced stage.

 Civil proceedings p leadings cannot be allowed to be radically altered at advanced stage by way of amendment, introducing new facts inconsistent with the original pleading in contravention of the bar contained in Order 6 Rule 7 Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9, O.6, R.7, O. 6 R.17 proviso - Additional written statement The case of the defendant: she  had claimed in her written statement that she was bonafide co-sharer of suit premises - Whereas by way of additional written statement, she claimed that she was tenant under plaintiff - This was not case of fact not having been stated in written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of additional written statement -  defendant sought to completely change her original  stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession - she retracted from  her earlier stand of being co-sharer and introduced a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand stating that she was a tenant , in guise ...
Read more

Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 -

Image
Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 Of Constitution of India - PDA Ordered to Pay Rs. 10 Lakhs Compensation To Each Of the Victims .  The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice and established procedures - such acts violates Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e citizen's right to shelter -  Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) directed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of the appellant. On March 1, 2021, a demolition notice was issued and served to the Appellants on March 6, 2021, with the actual demolition taking place the following day, March 7, 2021. This was done without granting them a fair chance to present their case before the appellate authority as stipulated in Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning Act. Among the Appellants, one is a Bar member, and another is a professor whose entire library was destroyed, resulting in their displaceme...
Read more

313 CrPC: False or non-explanation by accused no proof, no link in chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court observed that false explanation or non-explanation of the accused to the questions posed by the court under Section 313 CrPC(power to examine accused)of the Code cannot be used as link in chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused۔ It can be used as additional circumstances when the prosecution has proved that chain of circumstances has lead to the only hypothesis that accused has commited the crime۔ Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai of SCI observed
Read more