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…!
Multiple Cheques of Same Date - Main Points and Insights
Multiple Cheques Issued on Same Date: Several cases involve the issuance and presentation of multiple cheques on the same date for a single transaction. Courts have observed that dishonor of each cheque constitutes a separate offense, but presenting multiple cheques together on the same date can lead to legal complications and allegations of harassment ["Turn VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"].
dishonor in respect of each cheque would constitute separate offence. ["Challani Rank Jewellery VS Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalash Jewellers - Madras"]
Legal Consequences of Multiple Cheques: Courts have emphasized that each dishonored cheque can be treated as a separate cause of action. However, filing multiple complaints for cheques issued in a single transaction on the same date may be considered harassment, and courts tend to dismiss such petitions to prevent prejudice ["Challani Rank Jewellery VS Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalash Jewellers - Madras"].
the fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action. ["Sumit Bansal VS MGI Developers And Promoters - Supreme Court"]
Legal Timelines and Cause of Action: The accrual of cause of action depends on the dishonor and receipt of demand notices. When multiple cheques are issued on the same date, the cause of action for each can arise separately after dishonor and notice, but courts are cautious about multiple prosecutions arising from a single transaction ["Lakshmi Industries VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"].
the prosecution must be initiated within one month from the failure of payment. ["Lakshmi Industries VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"]
Dismissal of Petitions and Dismissal of Cases: Many cases have been dismissed when courts find that multiple cheques were issued in a single transaction, especially if presented on the same date, to prevent harassment and abuse of process ["Challani Rank Jewellery VS Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalash Jewellers - Madras"].
the complaint was premature or filed without cause, leading to dismissal. ["M.Solaikannan vs T.Raja Chidambaram - Madras"]
Factual Disputes and Authentication: Courts have also scrutinized the authenticity of the cheques, including issues like overwriting, date alterations, and whether the account had sufficient funds at the time of issuance. These factors influence whether multiple cheques are considered valid and whether proceedings can proceed ["Manoj Nagpal VS State of Uttarakhand - Current Civil Cases"], ["Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd - Thro' Satish Chandulal Dube VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"].
no account was available with the Bank on the date of issuance. ["Manoj Nagpal VS State of Uttarakhand - Current Civil Cases"]
Dismissals Based on Legal and Factual Grounds: Courts have dismissed petitions where the cheques were undated, forged, or issued without sufficient funds, especially when multiple cheques are involved in a single transaction. The courts have also dismissed petitions where the cause of action was not properly established or was premature ["Naveen A. V. , S/O Mr. A. S. Vishwanath VS Srinivasa Murthy S. , S/O Mr. Yerrappa - Karnataka"], ["V. Venkatesa Subbu v. M/s. Jaya Bhaskaran and Co. and Another - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion
Courts generally recognize that multiple cheques issued on the same date for a single transaction are treated as separate instruments, each capable of giving rise to a separate cause of action upon dishonor. However, to prevent harassment, courts tend to dismiss multiple complaints arising from a single transaction issued on the same date, especially if presented simultaneously, unless justified by factual evidence of separate debts or liabilities ["Challani Rank Jewellery VS Ashok Kumar Jain Proprietor of M/s Mangalkalash Jewellers - Madras"]. Furthermore, issues like forged cheques, overwriting, insufficient funds, or lack of proper authentication can lead to dismissal of cases ["Manoj Nagpal VS State of Uttarakhand - Current Civil Cases"], ["Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd - Thro' Satish Chandulal Dube VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"].
In cases where the complainant files multiple petitions or complaints for cheques of the same date, courts scrutinize whether these constitute genuine separate transactions or an abuse of process. The overarching principle is to balance the enforcement of the law with preventing harassment of the accused.
References:
In the world of business transactions, cheques remain a common payment method, but dishonour can lead to legal battles under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). A frequent issue arises when multiple cheques, all issued on the same date, are dishonoured. What happens if the complainant files a single complaint? Is it dismissed simply because there are multiple cheques from the same date? This question—multiple cheque of same date complainant dismissed—often puzzles payees and drawers alike.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from authoritative judgments. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 138 addresses cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or other reasons, treating it as a criminal offence if certain conditions are met: drawing the cheque, presentation, dishonour, and failure to pay after notice. The debate centers on whether multiple cheques dated the same day, part of one transaction, justify dismissing the complaint outright.
Main Legal Finding: Courts have ruled that multiple dishonoured cheques issued on the same date, forming a single transaction with a consolidated notice, do not warrant dismissal. They constitute one offence, making a single complaint maintainable. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
This prevents harassment through multiple proceedings and aligns with judicial efficiency.
A pivotal ruling clarifies: In the case of dishonour of multiple cheques presented together a consolidated single notice can be issued and it would tantamount to commission of a single offence under Section 138 of the Act if after the prescribed period of receipt of the notice, payment of the amount of the cheques is not made—Therefore, a single complaint will be maintainable for all the dishonoured cheques. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
Further: Though, these cheques may be of different dates and amounts, but the mere act of giving these cheques together have merged to form the same transaction especially when all the ten cheques have been presented together on a particular day... Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
This emphasizes presentation together and shared liability.
In cases involving multiple complaints from the same transaction, courts allow clubbing upon appearance. Petitioners countered allegations of multiple dishonoured cheques by seeking to club complaints, claiming they constitute a single transaction - Court found the dishonoured cheques presented together form a single transaction, and right to seek clubbing arises upon appearance before trial court. Stone Export House P. ltd. VS Taj Exports - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3240
Section 219 CrPC supports trying multiple offences in one trial if part of the same transaction, promoting efficiency and avoiding conflicting judgments. Stone Export House P. ltd. VS Taj Exports - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3240
Exceptions exist:- Different Transactions or Dates: Each cheque for separate liabilities or issued on varying dates may form distinct offences, justifying separate complaints. SAYA CHAUHAN, D/O SH. BHAGAT SINGH CHAUHAN VS ANKUSH ARORA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S FASHION POINT BOUTIQUE - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 2- Factual Variations: Cheques as security versus discharge of debt, or differing liabilities, influence treatment. Yadwinder Singh VS Raj Kumar Anand
For instance, if cheques relate to unrelated deals, courts lean towards separation to uphold individual accountability. SAYA CHAUHAN, D/O SH. BHAGAT SINGH CHAUHAN VS ANKUSH ARORA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S FASHION POINT BOUTIQUE - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 2
The legislative intent behind Section 138 is swift justice for cheque dishonour. Treating same-date, single-transaction cheques as one offence avoids:- Needless litigation.- Harassment of parties.- Judicial overload.
Filing separate complaints for each cheque of the same date and transaction is unnecessary and may cause harassment. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
Concurrent civil suits do not bar NI Act proceedings, as liabilities persist. Sureshbhai Bhadabhai Pansuriya VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1378
A single notice for all cheques suffices if presented together. This streamlines the process under Section 138's concatenation of acts: drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment. Stone Export House P. ltd. VS Taj Exports - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3240
Even if convicted across linked complaints, sentences may run concurrently if from the same transaction. The court held that since the complaints arose from the same transaction, the sentences imposed would run concurrently as per Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pawan Kumar VS G. J. V. , Enterprises - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2312
Courts should not dismiss solely on multiplicity of same-date cheques, as it contradicts precedents. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
Dismissing a Section 138 complaint merely for multiple same-date cheques is generally unsupported if they stem from a single transaction. A consolidated notice and single complaint are permissible, fostering efficiency. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894
Key Takeaways:- Same-date cheques presented together = single offence. Charashni Kumar Talwani VS Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala - 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 894- Clubbing possible for linked cases upon compliance. Stone Export House P. ltd. VS Taj Exports - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3240- Always prove enforceable debt; avoid procedural lapses.- Seek professional advice tailored to facts.
Stay informed on NI Act developments to navigate cheque-related disputes effectively. For more insights, explore related precedents.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes judicial trends and is for informational purposes only. Legal outcomes depend on specific facts; consult an advocate.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NIACT
Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts, namely, (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding ... It is further averred that the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that it does not stand the test of legality.
It was submitted that such conduct of the petitioner establishes that he has tried to dupe the complainant by entering into multiple transactions without any payment(s) to the complainant who is the actual Banakhat-holder of the land in question. ... With this, he urged that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. ... (2016) 10 SCC 458, wherein this Court after considering the decision in Indus Airways (supra) held that if a debt or liability is present on the date of presentation of the cheque....
Simply because the prosecution for an offence under Section 138 must on the language of Section 142 be instituted within one month from the date of the failure of the drawer to make the payment does not in our view militate against the accrual of multiple causes of action to the holder of the cheque ... The dates of cheque(s) along with number, amount, return memo with remarks, notice of demand, second notice of demand, date of filing complaint, date of order passed by Trial Court and ....
On the date of presentation of the cheque or even on the date of the cheque, the petitioners had no sufficient fund to honour it or made arrangement with bank to honour the cheques. The balance in the account running in debit. ... In fact, on 14/08/2020 the date on which the complainant alleged to have supplied silver articles, he was not running any business in the address given by him. ... In fine, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit.....
It is also true that dishonour in respect of each cheque would constitute separate offence. However, it is to be borne in mind that all the 27 cheques were presented to the Bank on one and the same date and they were dishonoured by the Bank. ... Vijayalakshmi reported in 2024 LawSuit (Kar) 43, it has been held that for dishonor of multiple cheques issued in one transaction, filing of multiple complaints caused tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawer of the cheques. ... [8.0] In wake of aforesaid legal proposit....
Secondly, the Court has not considered the anomalous situation that would arise where instead of multiple cheques being issued for the Rs. 12,42,289/- debt a single cheque had been issued. ... In fact, as per the orders dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure P-7 and P-8) and the statement of the complainant of the even date (Annexure P-9), the Court has held and the complainant has agreed that the complaint was between the same parties and the allegations were also similar. ... The complainant did....
The fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action. ... Upon the failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the Sale Deed(s) by 30.09.2018, Respondent No. 1 issued two cheques of that date, namely Cheque No. 057140 for Rs. 1,72,21,200/- representing the principal consideration, and Cheque No. 057141 for Rs. 35,00,000/- representing the appreciation amount ... money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability; (ii) ....
It was further submitted that the disputed cheque was not issued on 05.04.2022 as alleged; on that date, the Petitioner neither met the Complainant nor issued the cheque in question. 8. ... The Respondent, in his evidence, deposed that the Revision Petitioner/Accused filled in the cheque and issued it to him on the date mentioned in the petition. Furthermore, the Respondent agreed to send the disputed cheque for expert examination. ... However, the Trial Court #HL_STA....
of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer of the cheque.' ... and the said cheque had been misused by the complainant, as there was no outstanding amount towards the complainant. ... DW2 and the statements of accounts Ex.D10 to D-20, that the amount mentioned in the cheque was not outstanding against the respondents on the date of cheque, which creates a dent in the version as put forth by the complainant; Ninthly;....
34.2 If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque. ... The sum of rupees twenty lakhs represented on the cheque was not the "legally enforceable debt" on the date of maturity. Thus, the first respondent cannot be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act when the....
The complainant received payment of assured return till August, 2015. The complainant filed complaint before the competent court for the bouncing of cheque for September, 2015. The complainant has now filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid along with 24% p.a. interest beyond September, 2015 till actual payment. The complainant also received the September, 2015 cheque but the same bounced.
In such circumstances, it is stated by the complainant/1st respondent that the notice dated 04.01.2007 was issued to both the accused and the averments in the notice was denied by the petitioner/1st accused by his reply dated 15.01.2007. 4. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant was requested by the 2nd respondent/2nd accused herein not to present the cheque and the same should be returned once cash was paid in lieu of the cheque since no cash was paid till November 2006 and on instruction of the 2nd accused/2nd respondent herein, the said cheque was presented on 27.11....
However, on the next date, i.e., on 19.08.2010, accused no.2 returned the said cheque to the complainant no. Thereafter, on 28.06.2010, both the accused persons took an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- in cash from complainant nos.
The collection of the aforesaid cheque could not be done because it could not reach the proper place for collection. It was submitted that it happened through an inadvertent mistake because of which the cheque went to wrong place rather than reaching at correct destination and during this period its validity expired. In the meanwhile, since the validity of the cheque had expired, it was sent by the Post Master to the complainant/petitioner for revalidation and extension of the cheque date. It was contended by the OPs that the complainant instead of getting the cheque revalidated, f....
The accused offered the said amount but he has not received the same. 9. In reply to above noted submissions, counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the trial Court. Rs. 65,000/- has been received by the complainant after the filing of the complaint in view of the compromise, Rs. 30,000/- was adjusted towards the transfer of motor cycle. It is submitted that cheques were security cheque and as such complaint has rightly been dismissed and only Rs. 38,000/- were due payable to the complainant.
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
