SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Indian Bank Association and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. —Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 18 of 2013
Decided on 21.4.2014
Result: Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—This Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) along with Punjab National Bank and another, seeking the following reliefs:
a. Laying down appropriate guidelines/directions to be followed by all Courts within the territory of India competent to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) to follow and comply with the mandate of Section 143 of the said Act read with Sections 261 to 265 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for summary trial of such complaints filed or pending before the said Courts.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus for compliance with the guidelines of this Hon’ble Court indicating various steps to be followed for summary trial of complaints under Section 138 of the said Act and report to this Hon’ble Court.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents, to adopt necessary policy and legislative changes to deal with cases relating to dishonor of cheques so that the same are expeditiously disposed off in accordance with the intent of the Act and the guidelines to be laid down by this Hon’ble Court.
2. The first petitioner, which is an Association of Persons with 174 banks/financial institutions as its members, is a voluntary association of banks and functions as think tank for banks in the matters of concern for the whole banking industry. The Petitioners submit that the issue raised in this case is of considerable national importance owing to the reason that in the era of globalization and rapid technological developments, financial trust and commercial interest have to be restored.
3. The Petitioners submit that the banking industry has been put to a considerable disadvantage due to the delay in disposing of the cases relating to Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner banks being custodian of public funds find it difficult to expeditiously recover huge amount of public fund which are blocked in cases pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Petitioners submit that, in spite of the fact, Chapter XIV has been introduced in the Negotiable Instruments Act by Section 4 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liability by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds, the desired object of the Amendment Act has not achieved.
4. Legislature has noticed that the introduction of Sections 138 to 142 of the Act has not achieved desired result for dealing with dishonoured cheques, hence, it inserted new Sections 143 to 147 in the Negotiable Instruments Act vide Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 for speedy disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques through summary trial as well as making the offence compoundable. But, no uniform practice is seen followed by the various Magistrate Courts in the country, as a result of which, the object and purpose for which the amendments were incorporated, have not been achieved.
5. Cheque, though acknowledged as a bill of exchange under the Negotiable Instruments Act and readily accepted in lieu of payment of money and is negotiable, the fact remains that the cheque as a negotiable instrument started losing its credibility by not being honoured on presentation. Chapter XVII was introduced, as already indicated, so as to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended with the Bill explaining the provisions of the new Chapter reads as follows :-
“This clause [Clause (4) of the Bill] inserts a new Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The provisions contained in the new Chapter provide that where any cheque drawn by a person for the discharge of any liability is returned by the bank unpaid for the reason
Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nimesh B. Thakore
Radhey Shyam Garg v. Naresh Kumar Gupta
Nitinbhai Saevantilal Shah and another v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and another
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
Harischandra Biyani v. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.