TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Guarantor Liability in Cheque Bounce Case</h1> <h3>Vijender Singh Versus Eicher Motors Ltd.</h3> Vijender Singh Versus Eicher Motors Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.- Allegation against guarantor's liability under section 138.- Interpretation of legislative intent regarding liability under section 138.- Blank cheques signed by petitioner and filled by respondent.Issue 1: Quashing of ComplaintThe petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The petitioner contended that as a guarantor, they cannot be prosecuted under section 138 without action against the principal borrower. However, the court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under section 138. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and Supreme Court judgments to establish that the liability under section 138 cannot be avoided if a cheque is returned unpaid, regardless of the reason.Issue 2: Allegation Against Guarantor's LiabilityThe petitioner argued that as a guarantor, they cannot be held liable under section 138 of the Act as the blank cheques issued were misused by the respondent. The court rejected this argument, stating that once the petitioner admitted their signatures on the cheques, they cannot escape liability by claiming the cheques were filled by the respondent. The court highlighted that issuing a blank cheque implies authority for the holder to fill it, and the petitioner cannot avoid liability on this ground alone.Issue 3: Interpretation of Legislative IntentThe court analyzed the legislative intent behind section 138 of the Act, emphasizing that the language used in the provision clearly indicates that liability is triggered when a cheque is drawn for the discharge of any debt or other liability and is returned unpaid. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments to support the interpretation that the liability under section 138 extends to both debt and other liabilities, leaving no room for avoiding liability based on the relationship between guarantor and principal debtor.Issue 4: Blank Cheques Filled by RespondentLastly, the petitioner argued that the blank cheques issued were filled by the respondent, suggesting no legal consequences. The court dismissed this argument, stating that there is no legal requirement for the drawer to fill the cheque personally. Once the petitioner signed the blank cheques, they impliedly authorized the respondent to fill them, and the petitioner cannot evade liability on the grounds of the cheques being filled by the respondent.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit based on the analysis of the issues related to the quashing of the complaint, guarantor's liability under section 138, interpretation of legislative intent, and the filling of blank cheques by the respondent.
TaxTMI 