Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Cheque Deposit and Dishonor - A cheque dated 14/8/2013 was deposited, but it was returned unpaid on the same day, indicating possible non-funds or technical issues in clearing processes sources: JOHNSON LIFTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS JEWEL HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal, Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State, Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State.
Bank Handling and Error Cases - Multiple instances highlight issues such as incorrect account deposit, technical system errors, and cheque dishonor due to insufficient funds or image record problems. For example, in one case, a cheque issued on 10/8/2013 was deposited but later returned due to insufficient funds, and in another, a cheque was wrongly credited to a different account sources: Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State, Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State, BANK OF INDIA vs NEETA VISHWAKARMA - Chhattisgarh.
Cheque Date and Deposit Timing - The specific date of deposit (14/8/2013) and its immediate return suggest either a dishonor on the same day or technical issues preventing successful clearance. The deposit was acknowledged but not honored, consistent with common banking procedures when funds are insufficient or technical glitches occur sources: JOHNSON LIFTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS JEWEL HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal.
Technical and System Errors - Several cases mention system errors causing delays or failures in cheque image processing, leading to non-clearance or wrong deposit of funds, which aligns with the initial query about the cheque dated 14/8/2013 being deposited but returned on the same date sources: Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State, 1.The Manager Indian Overseas Bank Kovai Pudur Branc Coimbatore 641 042. And Another vs J.Sankara Narayanan S/o. Jegannathan Door No.6/16 Vivekanandhar Street Sundakamuthur Coimbatore 641 010. - Consumer State.
Analysis and Conclusion:The main points indicate that the cheque dated 14/8/2013 was deposited into the bank but was returned unpaid on the same day, likely due to insufficient funds or technical errors in processing. Multiple sources confirm that technical glitches, incorrect account details, or non-funds are common reasons for such returns. The case details suggest that the deposit was acknowledged but not honored, aligning with the scenario where a cheque deposited on 14/8/2013 was returned on the same date.
In the world of business transactions, cheques remain a common payment method despite digital alternatives. However, when a cheque bounces, it can lead to legal complications under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). A frequent query arises: Cheque Dt 9.3.13 Return on 14.8.13 Notice Issued on 19.8.13 Whether the Said Cheque was Deposited Within Prescribed Period. This scenario raises critical questions about cheque validity, presentation timelines, and the limitation period for filing a complaint.
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, drawing from established precedents and case analyses. Note: This is general information based on legal interpretations and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under the NI Act, a cheque must generally be presented for payment within its validity period to invoke Section 138 provisions. Prior to April 2012, this was six months from the date on the cheque; post-April 2012, it was reduced to three months by RBI guidelines. For a cheque dated 9 March 2013, the validity period would typically expire around 9 June 2013.
The return on 14 August 2013—over five months later—suggests the cheque may have been deposited after the prescribed period. However, courts emphasize that the date of dishonour triggers the cause of action, provided the cheque was presented within the statutory validityA. B. K. Publications Ltd. VS Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (1999)Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777.
Key requirements include:- Presentation within validity: Cheque must be deposited within three months (post-2012) or its validity period, whichever is earlier A. B. K. Publications Ltd. VS Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (1999).- Dishonour notice: A demand notice must be sent within 30 days of dishonour.- Complaint filing: Within one month from the notice period's expiry (15 days post-notice).
In this case, notice issued on 19.8.13 (five days after return) appears timely if dishonour is accepted as 14.8.13.
The date of deposit is relevant only to confirm if presentation was within the statutory period. The limitation for filing a Section 138 complaint begins from the date the cheque is dishonoured, not the deposit date Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777. As held in precedents, the date of dishonour of the cheque is the date when the offence is said to have been committedKamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777.
For instance:- Cheque returned unpaid on 14 August 2013 triggers limitation from that date, assuming valid presentation Subhash Yadav S/o Shri Ganesh Yadav VS Lalit Singh S/o Shri Thakur Lav Singh - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 370.- Courts in MSR Leathers affirm the cause of action arises only on dishonourKamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777.
If the cheque (dated 9.3.13) was deposited and returned on 14.8.13, scrutiny falls on whether deposit complied with the three-month validity (expiring ~9.6.13). A post-validity deposit may bar Section 138 proceedings, as no offence is constituted if not presented timelyAnsh Chugh vs Pradeep Gupta - Delhi (2020). Yet, if proven within period (e.g., via bank records), dishonour date (14.8.13) starts the one-month complaint window A. B. K. Publications Ltd. VS Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (1999).
Notice on 19.8.13 fits within 30 days, supporting potential validity.
Real-world cases highlight common pitfalls in cheque handling, often mirroring this query.
Same-Day Deposits and Returns: A cheque deposited on 14.8.2013 and returned the same day indicates swift bank processing, possibly due to insufficient funds or technical glitches. Similar to scenarios where cheques dated around 10.8.2013 were deposited 12.8.2013 but returned for funds shortage 1.The Manager Indian Overseas Bank Kovai Pudur Branc Coimbatore 641 042. And Another vs J.Sankara Narayanan S/o. Jegannathan Door No.6/16 Vivekanandhar Street Sundakamuthur Coimbatore 641 010. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 22926 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 22926.
Technical and System Errors: Banks sometimes return cheques for image record not exist or CTS clearance issues, even if funds exist. In one case, a payee's bank (HDFC) was asked to re-present due to unclear images BANK OF BARODA vs HARDIK KANUBHAI PATEL - Consumer State. Another involved deposit into wrong account, leading to dishonour Sh. Shyo Ram Dhanial. vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. - Consumer State. These align with potential reasons for 14.8.13 return.
Post-Dated or Delayed Deposits: Cases show cheques post-dated (e.g., 13 March 2018 deposited later) or acknowledged but not honored, emphasizing documentation of deposit dates HKSAR vs KOTHARI CHIRAG - 2025 Supreme(HK)(HKDC) 106 - 2025 Supreme(HK)(HKDC) 106. In NCLT proceedings, cheque dishonour rights persist post-moratorium if timely JOHNSON LIFTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS JEWEL HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal.
Bank Statement Evidence: Creditors must produce bank statements and IRP acknowledgments to prove timelines JOHNSON LIFTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS JEWEL HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal.
These examples underscore: Maintain deposit slips, return memos, and timelines to defend limitation claims.
If deposit post-9.6.13, offence not made outAnsh Chugh vs Pradeep Gupta - Delhi (2020). Courts verify via bank records S. I. L. Import, Usa VS Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore - 1999 4 Supreme 400.
To avoid disputes:- Deposit Promptly: Within validity period Subhash Yadav S/o Shri Ganesh Yadav VS Lalit Singh S/o Shri Thakur Lav Singh - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 370.- Document Everything: Keep deposit date proof, return memo, notice sent proof.- Send Notice Swiftly: Within 30 days of dishonour.- File Timely: One month post-notice period.- Verify Funds: Consider digital transfers for security.
For the cheque dated 9.3.13 returned 14.8.13, the pivotal question is deposit within prescribed period (likely 3 months). If yes, limitation runs from dishonour (14.8.13) Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777A. B. K. Publications Ltd. VS Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (1999). Notice on 19.8.13 supports action, but courts prioritize bank evidence.
Takeaways:- Dishonour date governs limitation, not deposit Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777.- Validity period is non-negotiable for offence constitution Ansh Chugh vs Pradeep Gupta - Delhi (2020).- Technical issues common; re-present if applicable.
Stay proactive with records to safeguard rights under NI Act. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
After initiation of CIRP, moratorium was declared under Section 14(1) of the IBC and Shri. K. ... bank statement of State Bank of India and the Operational Creditor has produced the acknowledgment before the IRP. ... read with Section 60(5)(a) of the IBC, 2016) Order delivered on14.03.2022 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. ... JLPL also has the right to fill separate case for any dishonour of cheque 3. ... Out....
Thus, the payment had been made by the petitioner by issuing a cheque drawn on one of its account which it maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce (now merged with Punjab National Bank) and such cheque No.093259 was bearing date as 16.02.2017. 8. ... Thus, admittedly, the amount under said cheque has already been duly deposited with the MCD, albeit, ....
…..For the opposite party No.2 Judgment on merit on14.01.2024 ... to the complainant-opposite party No.2 (if he did not withdraw the said amount).
The respondent-bank transferred the said amount in the account No.3290008700001853 mentioned in the cheque by the complainant himself. 13. ... The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid cheque amount has not been deposited in the account of Basant Ice Cream but deposited in some other account of Om Food Products Gramudyog Mandal. 14. ... Complainan....
The respondent-bank transferred the said amount in the account No.3290008700001853 mentioned in the cheque by the complainant himself. 13. ... The complainant has alleged that the aforesaid cheque amount has not been deposited in the account of Basant Ice Cream but deposited in some other account of Om Food Products Gramudyog Mandal. 14. ... Complainan....
The defendant deposited the said cheque in her account in Bank of India Tatyapara branch for the purpose of payment. ... The defendant deposited the cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the plaintiff bank, which was cleared and the amount was deposited in defendant bank account. She withdrew the said amount, but the plaintiff....
But according to the opposite parties, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, issued by one Emro Builders on 10.8.2013, drawn on City Union Bank, Kinathukadavu branch. The said cheque was presented in CTS clearance on 12.8.2013. ... While so on 10.8.2013, the complainant deposited into his account, a cheque No.000143 dt.....
But according to the opposite parties, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, issued by one Emro Builders on 10.8.2013, drawn on City Union Bank, Kinathukadavu branch. The said cheque was presented in CTS clearance on 12.8.2013. ... While so on 10.8.2013, the complainant deposited into his account, a cheque No.000143 dt.....
Further, knowing that PW1 wanted to take and deposit the cheque on 12 March 2018, D still post-dated the cheque, deliberately put 13 March 2018 on it, and on 14 March 2018 deposited US$896,777 into this HSBC account by a cheque drawn on another CSK Standard Chartered Bank account. ... PW4 accepted but required payment by bank transfer or #HL_S....
Ltd., the insurance company deposited the cheque which came for clearing with the Bank of Baroda, Patan. ... The said cheque was returned for reason No.27-“Image record not exist” only. ... The payees bank – The HDFC Bank was asked to present the cheque again for the image was not clear, the appellant even did not ask K.S.P A-14....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
