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 dismisses criminal complaint due to discrepancies in cheque value, parties agree on installment payments.</h1> <h3>M/s. Moser Baer Photo Voltaic Ltd. Versus M/s. Photon Energy Systems Ltd. & Others</h3> The court dismissed the criminal complaint under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to discrepancies between the settled amount ... Criminal prosecution for dishonour of a cheque for higher amount - Held that:- In the instant proceeding the parties have agreed that between the parties the total outstanding amount shall be treated as ₹ 1,80,00,000/- (Rupees one crore eighty lac only) and the same shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant in regular monthly instalments of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac). We accordingly direct that the respondents shall pay the first instalment of ₹ 15 lac by first week of April 2016. The remaining 11 instalments of ₹ 15 lac each shall be paid regularly by the first week of each succeeding month. On admission or proof of such payments in accordance with the aforesaid arrangement, the complaint case shall stand quashed if the entire amount of ₹ 1,80,00,000/- is paid by the respondents to the appellant by the first week of March 2017. Till then the complaint case shall remain in abeyance. It is made clear that if the entire payment is not made within the time indicated above then this order shall stand recalled and the complainant will be at liberty to move the concerned court for proceeding with the criminal case any time in April 2017 by virtue of the present order. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Issues:1. Dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds.2. Validity of criminal prosecution under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Settlement agreement between the parties regarding the outstanding amount.Analysis:1. The appellant supplied solar cells and laminates to respondent no.1, who issued a cheque for a large amount which was later reduced and settled at a lower sum due to disputes. The cheque was dishonored by the bank, leading to a legal notice demanding the settled amount. Respondent no.1 argued that the cheque was for security, not a debt. A criminal complaint was filed under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, resulting in a non-bailable warrant against the accused persons. However, the complaint was dismissed as the cheque amount differed from the legally enforceable debt mentioned in the notice.2. The judgment raised the question of whether a complainant can demand a lesser amount post-settlement and whether a prosecution for a higher amount is legally sustainable. The parties reached an amicable settlement agreeing on a total outstanding amount to be paid in monthly installments. The court directed the respondents to pay the agreed sum in installments, with the complaint case to be quashed upon full payment by a specified date. Failure to make the complete payment within the stipulated time would allow the complainant to proceed with the criminal case.3. The settlement agreement specified the total outstanding amount and the installment plan for payment. The court ordered the respondents to make monthly payments as agreed, with the complaint case to be kept in abeyance until full payment by the specified date. Non-compliance would result in the recall of the order, permitting the complainant to pursue the criminal case. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal based on the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
