TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 petition challenging Bank Ombudsman's decision on deposited cheque status</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Banking Ombudsman's order rejecting a claim against a bank for not intimating about a deposited ... Dishonour of Cheque - Rejection of claim against the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/Bank who failed to discharge their duty and service to him as per the RBI guidelines - illegality in not intimating regarding the status of the cheque deposited by him in the said bank in spite of several approach made by him. HELD THAT:- From the materials on record, it is clear that the Petitioner has presented a counter-foil dated 12.06.2017 with bank seal as proof that his deposit was duly acknowledged by the bank. However, generally in banks, the cheques are dropped in a 'Drop in Box' and no receipt is issued. If the depositor insists for the receipt, the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip is stamped and is returned to the depositor. But, this does not signify that the deposit via cheque is successful from the Bank’s end. The depositor is usually notified via his registered phone number with the Bank if his deposit has been successfully processed. In the instant case, the Petitioner has contended that after deposit of the cheque no intimation was received by him from the Opp. Party No.2/ Bank and due to his arrest after 7-8 days of the deposit of the said cheque, he could not contact the Opp. Party No.2/ Bank to know about the status of the aforesaid cheque. The fact that the Petitioner or any of his acquaintances did not inquire about the status of the cheque for approximately 2 years (5years in total) from the date of deposit itself casts a doubt on the genuineness of the Petitioner’s claim - the Petitioner in the instant case did not inquire about the status of deposit even after a week and thereafter, he was arrested. Moreover, a case for obtaining money through fraud has been registered against the Petitioner vide Badambadi P.S Case No.136/2017 under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 406 of IPC. The cheque in question in the present Writ Petition is also the subject matter of the said criminal case and the same is pending for trial. Since, a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner where he has been accused of receiving huge sums of money amounting to Rs.1,44,77,000/- for committing fraud, it is imperative that the case be investigated in proper prospective so as to unearth the true dimensions of the crime. Under these circumstances, this Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to the Banking Ombudsman's order rejecting claim against a bank for not intimating about the status of a deposited cheque. Detailed Analysis:I. Facts of the Case:The petitioner, an account holder, deposited a cheque in the bank but did not receive any intimation about its status. Upon inquiring later, he found out the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The bank refused to provide further details, citing police seizure of the petitioner's account.II. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:The petitioner argued that the bank failed to return the dishonored cheque, depriving him of the right to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, causing a loss of Rs. 67 lakhs.III. Submissions on Behalf of the Opposite Parties:The bank contended that the petitioner's account was frozen due to a criminal case where he was accused of fraudulently obtaining a large sum of money. They claimed the petitioner never presented the cheque to the bank and had forged documents.IV. Court's Analysis and Reasons:The primary issue was whether the petitioner presented the cheque to the bank. While the petitioner provided a counterfoil with a bank seal, the absence of bank endorsement raised doubts. The court noted the petitioner's delayed inquiry and the possibility of forged documents. A criminal case against the petitioner for fraud involving the cheque was pending trial. Citing precedent, the court emphasized the need for proper investigation in such cases. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.In conclusion, the court's decision was based on the doubts raised regarding the authenticity of the cheque deposit, the ongoing criminal case against the petitioner for fraud, and the need for thorough investigation in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
